Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Biological Control of Mycotoxigenic Fungi and Their Toxins: An Update for the Pre-Harvest Approach

Written By

Mohamed F. Abdallah, Maarten Ameye, Sarah De Saeger, Kris Audenaert and Geert Haesaert

Submitted: February 20th, 2018 Reviewed: March 9th, 2018 Published: November 5th, 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.76342

Chapter metrics overview

1,924 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Over recent decades, laboratory and field trial experiments have generated a considerable amount of data regarding the promising use of beneficial microorganisms to control plant diseases. Special attention has been paid to diseases caused by mycotoxigenic fungi owing to their direct destructive effect on crop yield and the potential production of mycotoxins, which poses a danger to animal and human health. New legislative initiatives to restrict the use of the existing commercial chemical pesticides have been an incentive for developing and registering new bio-pesticides. In this book chapter, we discuss up to-date pre-harvest biological control agents against mycotoxigenic fungi and their respective toxins. We will focus on the different modes of action of the most frequently studied biological control agents. Furthermore, a comprehensive overview on their ability to suppress mycotoxin biosynthesis will be discussed.

Keywords

  • biological control
  • mycotoxigenic fungi
  • mycotoxins
  • pre-harvest

1. State of the art

Cereals are a major source of calories consumed by people worldwide on a daily basis. With increasing global population, food production needs to increase by 50 to 70% in the next 30 years to avoid global food insecurity [1]. The danger of food insecurity is particularly serious for the developing countries especially sub-Saharan Africa where more people are suffering from hunger and this situation is expected to deteriorate in the future [2]. The challenge of safely and securely feeding these people, has to be faced in a world with a shrinking arable land, with less and more expensive fossil fuels, increasingly limited supplies of water, social unrest, economic uncertainty and within a scenario of a rapidly changing climate. Moreover the impact of plant diseases cannot be overestimated. The impact of fungal diseases and new variants of existing pathogens on agriculturally important crops is considered to be one of the main threats to worldwide food availability and safety. It was figured that diseases on our most important agricultural crops resulted in damages that were enough to feed 8.5% of the world’s population [3]. The mission of providing food to the growing world population can therefore not be accomplished without a good control of these plant diseases. An important group of plant pathogens are toxigenic plant pathogens which produce mycotoxins, secondary metabolites of unrelated chemical structures and biological properties with a very broad toxic effects to humans and livestock, so in addition to posing a threat for food security, these pathogens also pose a threat to food safety [4, 5, 6].

Management of plant diseases can be done by adopting several strategies such as the cultivation of resistant cultivars, the use of sound crop rotation schemes and the use of chemical control. The harmful impact of plant protection products on the environment and human and animal health have prompted the European Union (EU Directive 2009/128/EC) to encourage research on alternative and ecofriendly solutions such as integrated pest management and the use of biological control agents (BCAs). Biological control, henceforth called biocontrol, in plant pathology, aims at utilizing microorganisms to prevent the colonization and/or suppress the spread of harmful plant pathogens [7]. BCAs in this chapter are defined as beneficial microorganisms that are able to antagonize plant pathogens and protect the plant [8, 9, 10, 11]. Although the definition includes both pre-harvest and post-harvest strategies, this chapter will focus on pre-harvest biocontrol measures [12, 13].

The most studied mycotoxin producing plant pathogenic genera are Fusarium, Alternaria, Claviceps, Stachybotrysand Aspergillusspp. [4, 14, 15, 16]. These genera infect a wide array of commodities including cereals, nuts, beans, sugarcane, and sugar beet in the field (e.g. Fusarium, Alternariaand Clavicepsspp.)and/or during storage (e.g. Aspergillusspp.). Figure 1 illustrates, in term of biological control, the most studied mycotoxigenic fungi in pre-harvest in different crops. Fusarium graminearumis a predominant pathogen in wheat and maize, Fusarium verticillioidescontaminates maize while Aspergillus flavusinfects groundnuts and maize. Other mycotoxigenic plant pathogens such Alternaria alternata, Claviceps purpurea, and other members of the genera Fusarium(e.g. F. avenaceum, F. acuminatum, and F. proliferatum) and Aspergillus(e.g. A. carbonarius, A. niger, and A. parasiticus) received less attention in research to date.

Figure 1.

Overview of the number of papers published between 1989 and 2017 which use biological control strategies against, mycotoxigenic plant pathogenic fungi in different crops.

Mycotoxins are ubiquitous in agricultural crops and their production occurs under certain environmental conditions during and/or after plant colonization [4, 17]. Exposure to mycotoxins either in a short and/or long term can lead to diverse toxic effects on a wide range of organisms [5, 6, 14, 17, 18]. Often, these fungal toxins are not only harmful for vertebrates and invertebrates (mycotoxins) but also for plants (phytotoxins). Economically, these natural contaminants hamper the international trade and significantly affect the world economy due to borders rejection when mycotoxin concentrations exceed the maximum permissible levels. Although the production of mycotoxins by these toxigenic plant pathogens is of economic importance, many research groups do not take them into account when studying biological control strategies. These studies are then limited to the fungicidal or fungistatic effects of the BCAs while the effect of the BCAs on mycotoxin production is often overlooked. Figure 2A subscribes this issue and shows the number of papers on mycotoxigenic fungi with and without considering mycotoxins under in vitro, greenhouse and field conditions over the last 30 years. The figures presented in Figure 2A are even an underestimation, as they comprise research on A. flavus(Figure 2B). Many of these papers deal with “Aflasafe” and all include aflatoxin measurements. Omitting these A. flavusdata provides a more correct view on the lack of studies investigating the effects of BCAs on mycotoxin production (Figure 2C).

Figure 2.

Number of published papers between the period of 1988–2017 addressing biocontrol of mycotoxigenic fungi with and without considering the effect on mycotoxins.

In view of the importance of mycotoxins for animal and human health, this review will focus on the effect of BCAs on the mycotoxin production by toxigenic plant pathogenic fungi. In a first part, we will provide an overview on the diverse modes of action BCAs can have. Secondly, a more in depth insight into the effect of BCAs on production of the major mycotoxins is provided. Finally, we end by providing some perspectives for future research and hurdles that might have to be taken.

Advertisement

2. Modes of action of BACs

The main modes of action of BCAs are antibiosis, competition, mycoparasitism, and stimulation or enhancement of plant defense[7]. BCAs usually relay on more than one mode of action to antagonize the pathogen i.e. presence of one dominant mode of action does not exclude the others. Table 1summarizes the reported modes of action used against mycotoxigenic fungi in each crop.

Mode of action of BCAs
PathogenHostMycoparasitismAntibiosisCompetition for niche / nutrientsIndirect through the plantReferences
AlternariaalternataWheat[48, 107]
Rice[75, 109]
AspergillusterreusHAP1Apple[110]
carbonariusGrape[111, 112]
flavusCottonseed[52, 53, 54]
Pistachio nuts[113, 114]
Peanuts[58, 59, 60, 61, 66, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119]
Maize[27, 55, 56, 65, 67, 84, 95, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124]
nigerPeanuts[125]
Grape[111]
parasiticusPeanuts[59, 60]
FusariumMaize[121]
acuminatumMaize[126]
Sorghum[126]
Wheat[126]
avenaceumMaize[126]
Sorghum[126]
Wheat[126, 127]
culmorumBarley[92, 102]
Maize[72, 127, 128, 129]
Wheat[48, 51, 130, 131, 132]
Rice[133]
equisetiMaize[126]
Sorghum[126]
Wheat[126]
graminearumBarley[103]
Maize[99, 128, 129, 134]
Sorghum[126]
Wheat[35, 48, 51, 72, 76, 77, 78, 89, 93, 100, 101, 107, 108, 126, 127, 129, 130, 131, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144]
Soybean[145]
langsethiaeWheat[127]
nivaleMaize[126]
Sorghum[126]
Wheat[126]
poaeMaize[126]
Sorghum[126]
Wheat[107, 126, 127]
proliferatumMaize[129, 146]
Wheat[129]
sambucinumMaize[126]
Sorghum[126]
Wheat[126]
sporotrichioidesMaize[126]
Sorghum[126]
Wheat[126, 127]
verticillioidesRice[74]
Maize[73, 84, 90, 94, 95, 96, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158]
Wheat[127]
crookwellenseMaize[126]
Sorghum[126]
Wheat[78, 126]

Table 1.

Different modes of action used by BCAs against mycotoxigenic fungi.

(i) Antibiosisencompasses the production of secondary metabolites such as antibiotics [19, 20, 21], lytic enzymes [22] and other proteins [23] that are able to suppress the growth, weaken the virulence or kill the pathogenic fungi.

(ii) Competitionoccurs when two or more fungi compete for the same essential nutrients required for their growth and development [24, 25]. Another type of competition is exclusion by occupying the same niche [26, 27].

(iii) Mycoparasitismor hyperparasitismis a direct parasitic attack of one fungus by another one which eventually causes death of the host pathogen [28, 29, 30].

(iv) Colonization of the plant, by beneficial micro-organisms can trigger local or systemic defense responses, thus enhancing resistance against plant pathogens [31, 32].

2.1. Antibiosis

Production of a wide range of antibiotics, enzymes and other antifungal compounds which contribute to adverse impacts on plant pathogen are characteristic features of different fungal BCAs such as Trichodermaspp. and Clonostachysspp. [8, 11, 24, 33]; bacterial BCAs such as Bacillusspp., Pseudomonasspp., Streptomycesspp. and Lactobacillusspp. [19, 20, 34, 35]; and yeast BCAs such as Cryptococcusspp., Kluyveromycesspp. and Saccharomycesspp. [10, 36]. All these BCAs have an arsenal of metabolites targeting different structures of the pathogen which thereafter curtails the growth or kills the pathogen.

A. Enzymes hydrolyzing fungal cell wall

The fungal cell wall is a complex structure containing mainly glucan polymers and chitin. For several BCAs, molecules which interfere with this cell wall have been described. Peptaibols, linear oligopeptides produced by Trichodermaspp., inhibit beta-glucan synthase which prevents the pathogen from reconstructing its cell wall [37]. Culture filtrates of a T. harzianumisolate changed the colony color of A. flavusand had a clear effect on the growth. A microscope study showed alterations in the morphology of A. flavusrepresented by abnormal vesicle formation and various aberrant conidial heads reflecting cell wall deformity [38]. Production of some extracellular enzymes (amylolytic, cellulolytic, pectinolytic, lipolytic and proteolytic) were also demonstrated, however the inhibition was directly associated with source of carbon (glucose or sucrose) or nitrogen (L-alanine or other) available in the medium [38].

B. Production of metabolites that affect fungal membrane

Production of antifungal metabolites interfering with membrane structures have been described in several BCAs. The most important class is the lipopeptides which interfere with the membrane and the sterols in the membrane [39]. These lipopeptides have been proven to be effective against several genera of toxigenic fungi such as Aspergillusand Fusariumspp.

The presence of two antibiotic lipopeptides, iturin and surfactin, revealed the potent antifungal activity [20] of two Bacillusspp. (P1 and P11) against A. flavus[40]. Similarly, B. subtilisBS119m was able to completely inhibit A. flavusgrowth which was associated to its ability to produce a high amount of surfactin [41]. Crane et al. monitored iturins produced by B. amyloliquefaciensin wheat under greenhouse and the field conditions and found an inverse relationship between iturins levels and Fusariumdisease incidence [42]. Fengycin, another lipopeptide purified from Bacillus subtilisIB culture showed an inhibitory effect against F. graminearum[19].

C. Production of antifungal compounds having antibiotic effects not related to membrane and cell wall effects

Where antibiotics have been described as powerful allies in the battle against bacterial contaminants, several molecules have been described which are fungicidal. The polyketide compound 2,4-diacetylphloroglucinol (DAPG) produced by P. fluorescenshas received a particular consideration due to the broad spectrum activity against various fungal pathogens [43, 44, 45, 46]. The molecule was isolated from Pseudomonasspp. strain F113 present in the rhizosphere of sugar beets [46] and has later been isolated from the rhizosphere of different crops [47]. DAPG has been shown to have antifungal effects against Fusariumand Alternariaspp. [48].

Although antibiosis has been proven to be a major weapon against plant pathogenic, fungal resistance might arise. One example is known for F. verticillioidesin which a Lactamase encoding gene (FVEG_08291) has been identified which enables the pathogen to resist benzoxazinoid phytoanticipins produced in plant but also possibly microbial xenobiotic lactam compounds [49]. This information therefore raises an important question about the ability of mycotoxigenic plant pathogens to cope with the antifungal compounds produced by BCAs. In case that reported fungal resistance may be present against BCAs, this may necessitate the continuous exploration of new antibiotics.

2.2. Competition for niche and nutrition

Competition for niche or competitive exclusion is a restriction of access to the habitat of a pathogen on the plant or seeds by another microorganism while competition for nutrients happens when two or more microorganisms compete for the same source of macro- and micro-nutrients required for growth and secondary metabolites production [7].

One of the most famous and promising examples on competition for ecological niche and nutrition is found in A. flavuscontrol [26]. However, competition of other mycotoxigenic pathogens such as F. pseudograminearumthrough nutrient competition [50] and F. culmorumand F. graminearum[51] were also reported. It has been demonstrated that atoxigenic A. flavusstrains are powerful BCAs to control the toxigenic strains of A. flavusin cottonseed [52, 53, 54], maize [27, 55, 56, 57] and various types of nuts [58, 59, 60, 61]. Currently, different strains of atoxigenic A. flavusare being used depending on the endemic area and sometimes a mixture of strains is used in the field. This competitive exclusion theory has been recently confirmed in situ by co-inoculating corn kernels with GFP-labeled AF70 and wild-type AF36. The study showed that there is a population difference (up to 82% reduction) between the co-inoculated kernels with both fungi and the control one inoculated only with GFP-labeled AF70 after visualizing under UV. Furthermore, aflatoxins (AFs) analysis showed a 73% reduction compared to the control [62].

However, AFs are not the only toxic compounds produced by A. flavus. Cyclopiazonic acid (CPA) is another mycotoxin produced by certain strains of A. flavus, including the atoxigenic strains, affecting mainly the liver and muscles of livestock [63, 64]. As an example, the commercially registered BCAs AF36, while it is effective against toxigenic A. flavus, it has been confirmed for its CPA production in cottonseeds. Therefore, researchers screened and tested new strains lacking the production of both toxins for the same previously mentioned crops [65, 66, 67]. Testing atoxigenic strains of A. flavusagainst other AFs producing fungi such as A. parasiticuswas less common because A. parasiticusis less virulent and not predominantly occurs in the soil as A. flavus[59].

Competition for nutrient and niche can also be seen in Trichodermaand Clonostachysspp. when they are applied before pathogen occurrence [11, 68]. Trichodermaspp., especially T. harzianum, produce siderophores, low-molecular-mass ferric-iron-specific chelators, when the available iron in the environment is low [23]. Siderophores chelate the oxidized ferric ions (Fe + 3) making it available as an iron source [24, 37, 69] and this enables Trichodermaspp. to compete for iron which is an essential element for the development of many plant pathogens [24, 68].

2.3. Mycoparasitism

Mycoparasitism is a direct parasitic relationship between one fungus and another fungal host [24]. The mycoparasitic interaction is mediated through certain gene involved in synthesis of some metabolites (mainly chitinases, glucanases, and proteases) allowing the parasitic fungi to degrade and invade the host cells [24, 29, 70]. A wide array of BCAs employ this strategy to compete against several mycotoxigenic pathogens especially against Fusariumspp. Among these, Trichodermaspp., are a widespread mycoparasitic BCA naturally present in the soil and the plant [11, 70, 71]. The fungi are mainly biotrophic, perform mycoparasitic interaction with living fungi, although the species also compete for niche and nutrients, enhance the plant systemic and localized resistance and secrete secondary antifungal metabolites [29, 68]. Upregulation of some chitinase-encoding genes occurred upon mycoparasitic contact of Trichodermaspp. with Fusarium[71, 72]. T. virideshowed a potent antagonisms of F. verticillioidesin an in vitroassay which was proven by the suppression of radial extension of the fungus by 46% after 6 days and by 90% after 14 days [73].

On rice, T. harzianumperformed very well against F. verticillioidesthrough mycoparasitism and showed a mutual antagonism by contact [74]. Some metabolites such as cell wall-degrading enzymes, chitinases and ß-1,3 glucanases were suggested by the author to be involved in the mechanism as the evidence of mycoparasitism in this study was supported by cryo scanning electron microscopic observations. The same experimental setup was previously done using the same BCA on rice but against Alternaria alternataand similar results and conclusions were reported [75]. Upon fungal cell wall degradation by chitinases produced by Trichodermaspp., another type of enzymes called exochitinases are secreted and the attack starts to kill the pathogen [24].

Trichodermaspp. have mostly been tested as a BCA against F. graminearumin wheat [38, 51, 76, 77, 78]. In a field trial, T-22 strain, reduced formation of perithecia of F. graminearumby 70% [77].

Clonostachysis another genus famous for mycoparasitism and demonstrates a promising BCA against a wide range of plant pathogens including F. graminearum, F. verticillioides, F. poae, and F. culmorum. However, compared to Trichoderma, Clonostachysspp. are poorly studied. Within Clonostachysspp., C. roseais the most researched and has been associated with multiple modes of action such as antibiosis [33], induction of plant resistance, [79], and niche and nutrient competition [80]. The fungus C. roseasecretes a number of antibiotics such as peptaibols, gliotoxin, trichoth as well as cell wall degrading enzymes such as chitinases, glucanases. C. RosaACM941 was reported to produce chitin-hydrolysing enzymes capable of degrading cell wall of F. culmorum[81].

Recently, Sphaerodesspp. have been discovered as a potential biocontrol agent against Fusariumspp. relying on mycoparasitism tactics with promising results. Among these species Sphaerodes mycoparasiticawas isolated in association with Fusariumspp. from wheat and asparagus fields [82] and has shown its ability to limit Fusariuminfection in both 3-ADON and 15-ADON chemotypes and limit DON synthesis both in vivo and in planta [82, 83]. For bacterial BCAs, Palumbo et al. [84] reported the production of antifungal metabolites and chitinase by P. fluorescens(strains JP2034 and JP2175) which had negative effects on the growth of A. flavusand F. verticillioides.

2.4. Indirect through the plant

Enhancement of systemic plant resistance using plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria, which results an effective protection against a broad spectrum of pathogens, has been well described [85, 86, 87]. P. fluorescensis known to produce various plant growth regulators such as indole acetic acid, gibberellins and cytokinins which interfere with plant signaling [88]. In addition, it also produces antibiotics, volatile compounds, enzymes [21, 89]. The production of indole-3-acetic acid by P. fluorescensMPp4 is triggered by the presence of some pathogens such as F. verticillioidesM1 which in turn contributes into its antagonistic activity [90]. P. fluorescensCHA0 prevented the carbon diversion and plant biomass reduction due to F. graminearuminfection in barley [91]. The antagonistic activity of P. fluorescensMKB158 against F. culmorumwas documented by Khan et al., however, the author mentioned that an indirect effect through enhancement of the plant systemic resistant is involved in the antagonistic activity [92]. Lysobacter enzymogenesstrain C3 exerts also its biocontrol effect though induction of resistance in wheat against F. graminearumbeside the production of lytic enzymes [93]. Effective reduction of the pathogen after heat treatment of C3 broth cultures to inactivate the bacterial cells and lytic enzymes was a confirmation for the presence of some fungal elicitors.

Besides rhizobacteria, the fungus T. harzianum, while, has also been shown to promote plant growth, increase nutrient availability and enhance the resistance against fungal diseases through colonization of plant roots [24, 37, 70]. Extensive research has been done to use Trichodermaspp., against F. verticillioides[94], F. graminearum[78] and A. flavus[95]. T. harzianumwas reported to limit F. verticillioidesin maize through the induction of systemic resistance by inducing ethylene and jasmonate signaling pathways [96]. Recently, novel species of Trichoderma(T. stromaticum, T. amazonicum, T. evansii, T. martiale, T. taxiand T. theobromicola)are classified as true endophytes as they have been reported to invade the plant tissue away from the root and induce transcriptomic changes in plants and protect the plants from diseases and abiotic stresses [97].

Another approach to enhance the plant resistance is through colonization. Extensive research is being done to discover endophytic microorganisms which colonize plant (tissue) without harming the plant [98] to reduce the plant diseases and mycotoxins in crops [99, 100, 101, 102, 103]. Endophytes can enhance plant growth and fitness, and offer protection against biotic and abiotic stresses by inducing plant defense responses. However, it should be noted that some of them are pathogenic to the plant in some phases of their lifecycle or under certain environmental conditions [98]. Some endophytes exert its role to enhance the host immune system against several fungal pathogens through the improvement of the nutrient uptake from the soil such as Piriformospora indica, a cultivable root fungal endophyte belonging to the order Sebacinales in Basidiomycota [104, 105]. The ability of Piriformospora indicato protect barley from root rot caused by F. graminearumwas confirmed [103]. This was supported by a positive correlation between the relative amount of fungal DNA and disease symptoms and the absence of an inhibition on the growth of F. graminearumwhen co-inoculated with Piriformospora indicain an in vitroassay. Another endophyte such as Epicoccum nigrumhas also proven its biocontrol activity against several plant pathogens [106], however it is ability to control diseases caused by mycotoxin producing fungi were scarcely studied [107, 108].

Advertisement

3. Biocontrol and mycotoxins

3.1. Trichothecenes toxins

Fusarium head blight (FHB) and Fusariumear rot (FER) are two of the most serious diseases affecting wheat and maize respectively throughout the world [130, 131, 139]. Over the last few years, FHB was predominantly caused by three species of Fusarium: F. graminearum, F. avenaceumand F. culmorum[108, 159] while FER is mainly caused by F. verticillioides, F. proliferatum, F. subglutinans, and F. graminearum[154, 156]. However FHB mostly occurs as a complex of several species [14, 160]. Each disease has multi-destructive effects on the crop through reducing the yield and grain quality. Over 180 types of trichothecenes are produced by Fusariumspp. contaminating mainly agricultural staples such as maize, wheat, and barley [14, 15]. The most prominent members are deoxynivalenol (DON), nivalenol (NIV) and T-2 Toxin. The biochemical importance of DON for fungal growth and development is not fully clear yet; however, it may have an important role during fungal infection and colonization and act as a virulence factor [160]. In animals, DON interferes with the cellular protein synthesis and clinically causing animal feed refusal and vomiting while NIV may induce genotoxic effect and leucopenia on long term exposure [4, 5, 17]. T-2 toxin triggers apoptosis to immune cells [161]. Due to the complexity of the life cycle of Fusariumspp., researchers mostly tried two application strategies to biologically control the disease, treatment of the crop residue with the antagonist or treatment of wheat ears at anthesis [162]. Most of the performed experiments used bacterial BCAs rely on antibiosis mainly to control the diseases and DON level. Less research discussed the effect of BCAs on NIV [51] and T-2 toxin [107].

An isolate of Trichoderma, T. gamsii6085, was selected as a potential antagonist against F. culmorumand F. graminearum. The strain exhibited the capacity to negatively affect DON production by both pathogens up to 92% [72]. A field experiment on winter wheat for two seasons was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of different BCAs against ear blight and associated DON presence. Two strains of F. equisetiwere the best performing strains and decreased the mycotoxins level produced by F. culmorumand F. graminearumby 70 and 94%, respectively. However, low levels of NIV in the cereals treated with F. equisetiwere detected [51]. Recently, Piriformospora indicahas proven its promising ability to reduce the severity the disease caused by F. graminearumand mycotoxin DON contamination in wheat by 70–80% and increase the total grain weight of F. graminearum-inoculated samples by 54% [100]. Novel bacterial endophytes predicted to be Paenibacillus polymyxaand Citrobacterwere able to detoxify DON in vitro, but the performance of some of these isolated strains under field condition or in green house has not been reported yet [99].

Three stains of the yeast Cryptococcusspp. (Cryptococcus nodaensisOH182.9, Cryptococcusspp. OH 71.4, and Cryptococcusspp. OH 181.1) were tested in several field experiments and they could control the disease by 50–60% on susceptible winter wheat. However DON content was the same as control [137]. Later, the same group cultivated another strain, Cryptococcus flavescensOH 182.9, and applied it at early anthesis but found no effects on DON level [142].

Besides fungal and yeast BCAs, bacteria have also been used to control DON produced by F. graminearumin wheat [35, 139, 144, 163] and in maize [99]. A complete reduction in DON content was achieved when B. subtilisRC 218 and Brevibacillusspp. RC 263 were applied at anthesis for two seasons [144] which was consistent with previous findings under greenhouse conditions by the same authors [163], although there was no constant reduction in the disease incidence. Opposite to that, Khan and Doohan tested three strains of Pseudomonasspp., two strains of fluorescensand one strain of frederiksbergensis, against F. culmorumand DON production in wheat and barley in a small scale field experiment. The results showed that DON was reduced in wheat and barley by 12 and 21%, respectively [164].

Other types of trichothecenes were not well researched as the previously mentioned toxins due to their low incidence in crops. Variable results for T-2 toxin after spraying the ears of susceptible and resistant wheat cultivars with Trichodermaspp. under greenhouse conditions were documented. The author used four fungi, Epicoccumspp., Trichodermaspp., Penicilliumspp. and Alternariaspp. however the last one is known for production of Alternariatoxins [107].

3.2. Zearalenone

Although zearalenone (ZEN) is an important mycotoxin in many cereals, less attention has been paid to control this toxin. ZEN is a potent mycoestrogen which competitively binds to estrogen receptors causing reproductive disorders in farm animals and human [5]. Other forms of ZEN include α and β zearalenol, zearalanone and, α and β –zearalanol which are often detected at variable concentration usually lower than ZEN.

Trichodermaisolates have recently been reported to detoxify ZEN by transforming ZEN into reduced and sulfated forms [165]. This was in accordance with previous results by Gromadzka et al. who tested two isolates of Trichodermaand several isolates of Clonostachys in vitroagainst two isolates of F. graminearumand two isolates of F. culmorum. Despite the high rate of ZEN reduction (over 96%), the performance of these isolates under greenhouse or field experiments was not confirmed [128].

C. roseaconverts ZEN into less toxic compounds through an enzymatic alkaline hydrolysis by lactonohydrolase in vitro[23, 166]. This has been proved after cloning the coding region of the responsible gene, zhd 101, and expressing in Schizosaccharomyces pombe[167] and Escherichia coli, but not with Saccharomyces cerevisiaewhich exhibited weak detoxification activity against ZEN [168]. Through this approach which involves the direct interaction between BCAs and pathogen toxin, resistance of BCAs to mycotoxin itself is an important feature to ensure the efficacy and durability. Also, it was proven that C. roseais tolerant to ZEN exposure due to the presence of high numbers of ATP-binding cassette transporters [169].

3.3. Fumonisins

Fumonisin B1 (FB1), the main member of fumonisins, is produced by F. verticillioidesand F. proliferatumwhich usually infect maize [14]. The mycotoxin suppresses ceramide synthase and causes neurological toxicities in horses, pulmonary edema in pigs, and may pose hepatotoxicity and esophageal cancer in human [18]. Therefore, several trials have been conducted to effectively control the mycotoxin in maize using different strategies. Most of the field studies were done using bacterial BCAs [147, 148, 150, 158] while other types of BCAs, and fungi, were restricted to in vitrotesting [73, 154, 155, 156]. Maize rhizobacterial isolates belonging to Pseudomonasand Bacillusgenera significantly reduced the mycotoxin production by 70 to 100% [157]. However, in another study, a mixture of P. Solanacearumand B. subtiliswas not able to affect FB1 concentration [151]. Seed treatment with B. amyloliquefaciensBa-S13 was sufficient to reduce fumonisins B1 concentration in maize field tests [148]. That has been confirmed in a 2-year field study with the same bacteria, B. amyloliquefaciens, after application of two different treatments: inoculating seeds during pre-sowing and maize ears at flowering [150].

P. fluorescensisolated from maize rhizosphere by Nayaka et al. had a clear reduction of FB1 content and the disease incidence after challenge with F. verticillioidesduring a 3-years study [147]. Seed treatment followed by spray treatment with a pure culture of P. fluorescensreduced the incidence of fumonisins by 88% [147]. Bacon et al. suggested the use of the endophytic bacterium, B. subtilisto control FB1 production as a convenient approach to prevent the vertical transmission of the fungi. Under greenhouse conditions, FB1 was reduced by 50% [154].

When T. viridewas co-inoculated in corn kernels with F. verticillioides, a reduction of FB1 by 72–85% was obtained depending on the time of inoculation [73]. The fungus was also proposed as a postharvest agent to prevent the accumulation of the toxins during storage [73, 154]. It was proven that C. roseacan inhibit the synthesis of fumonisins by F. verticillioidesbut does not degrade it [170]. Constant reduction of FB1 by 60–70% depending on the temperature when a 50:50 mixture of the pathogen and C. rosea016 applied at different ripening stage of maize cobs. These investigations were done as F. verticillioidesmay attack maize at ripening under suitable environmental conditions [156]. Previously, similar results at the same concentration (50:50/ pathogen: C. rosea016) in milled maize agar were also reported [155]. It could be concluded that using bacterial BCAs rely on antibiosis was more effective to control FB1 in vitroand in field trials.

3.4. Aflatoxins

AFs are the most natural carcinogenic substance in the history targeting mainly liver and are classified as Group 1 according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer [4, 6, 16, 171]. A. flavusand A. parasiticusinfect mostly groundnuts, maize, cottonseed, soybean and tree nuts in the field and/or during storage producing a wide range of secondary toxic metabolites including AFs [60, 172]. Researchers have mostly been focusing on A. flavusas the fungus is highly invasive and more widespread in nature compared to A. parasiticus. Regarding their ability to synthetize mycotoxins, toxigenic A. flavusstrains produce aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) and B2 (AFB2) while A. parasiticusproduces four types of AFs (AFB1, AFB2, AFG1 and AFG2). CPA is only produced by A. flavusincluding strains which lack the potential to produce AFs [173].

In general, reduction of AFs in different crops has mostly been performed with non-toxigenic A. flavusstrains [27, 52, 54, 60, 65, 114, 120, 123]. Some of these strains (AF36 as an example) are commercially available in the market [53, 65]. Two theories are suggested on the mode of action for the reduction of AFs by non-toxigenic A. flavusBCAs; (i) reduction due to competitive exclusion on toxigenic wild A. flavuspopulation and (ii) inhibition of biosynthetic pathways involved in aflatoxin production, however the exact mechanism is still obscure [62].

Doster et al. used A. flavusstrain AF36 as a BCA to control AFs in pistachio orchards for four consecutive seasons (2008–2011) and he could diminish AFs level by 20–45% [114]. In groundnuts, more trials in vitro[61, 66] and in the field [58, 59, 60] have been done. Zhou et al. 2015 found a positive correlation between AFs reduction rate and inoculum dose while Hulikunte Mallikarjunaiah et al. 2017 measured total AFs in rhizospheric and geocarpospheric soil and groundnut seeds after he treated them with two strains isolated from India. A significant reduction of mycotoxin concentration below the maximum permissible levels for ground nuts was obtained [61]. Field trials in Argentina were designed to control AFs in groundnut. However, the author reported a high level of AFs reduction, and the results were inconsistent between the two seasons [58, 59].

High levels of AFs and CPA control in maize field were achieved after challenging two strains of A. flavuswith atoxigenic strains K49 and NRRL 21882 [65]. Mauro et al. could obtain similar results in vitroafter screening for local atoxigenic strains from Italy [67]. In Nigeria, a successful maize field trial exhibited the promising use of two locally isolated strains, La3279 and La3303, in controlling AFB1 and AFB2 up to 99.9% [120]. When these two strains mixed with other two strains to make a mixture applied to the soil before flowering, a similar conclusion was obtained [55] with the advantage of persistence of the biocontrol effect during storage.

Researchers have also tested different species of Trichodermasuch as T. viride, T. harzianumand T. asperellum[38, 95, 115, 116]; bacteria [84, 121, 124]; yeast [36, 174]; and algae [118] as a potential alternative BCAs to control Aspergillusspp., although not all have looked into mycotoxins (Figure 2B). Production of two volatile compounds, dimethyl trisulfide and 2,4-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-phenol, by Shewanella algaestrain YM8 showed a 100% inhibition on aflatoxin synthesis in maize and peanuts stored at different water activities [118]. Previously, B. subtilisRCB 90 in vitrowas also reported to completely inhibit AFB1 [121]. The yeast, Candida parapsilosisIP1698 was also able to inhibit aflatoxin production (90–99%) at different pH and temperatures [174]. This was also in line with the same reduction percentage obtained but with Bacillusspp. P1 and Bacillusspp. P11 [40]. Aiyaz et al. tested in the field, four BCAs and all the formulations, by maize seeds treatment application, had a significant reduction in AFs level [95].

Advertisement

4. From lab bench to field trials

Hundreds of BCAs have been tested against different types and strains of mycotoxigenic fungi in vitro. However, not all of them were effective against mycotoxigenic fungi under field conditions. For instance, Johansson et al. selected 164 bacterial isolates out of 600 for a field experiment to control F. culmoruminfection in wheat and three strains of Fluorescent pseudomonadsand a species of Pantoeagave a high level of control and consistent results [159].

In general, the difference in BCAs performance from in vivocondition to field conditions might be related to the influence of other factors present in the field such as meteorological parameters, soil characteristics, nutrient availability, microbial community which may affect the efficacy of the screened BCAs. Other important parameters which are not present in in vivostudies include the way of delivery of the BCAs to the host (spray or direct inoculation), form of delivery (conidial or spore suspension/with or without carrier), application time (during seeding or flowering) and application route (to the soil or directly to the seed) to ensure the interaction of BCAs against the pathogen. Examples for the available BCAs in the market include AF36 and Afla-Guard® which are commercial BCAs for pre-harvest application to control aflatoxin contamination in the United States [62], Polyversum®, a recent authorized commercial product in France (Pythium oligandrum strain ATCC 38472) to be used against Alternariaspp., Fusariumspp., and other plant pathogens, and Plant ShieldTM which is the registered product for T. harzianum22.

It is crucial to test all the application related parameters in the field as these parameters may give significantly variable results which are not usually followed in many of the performed field trials against mycotoxigenic caused diseases. For example, point inoculation of Streptomyces sp. BN1 was not effective to control FHB in wheat while spraying of bacterial spores during wheat flowering gives better results [175]. Successful formulation of C. roseaACM941 guaranteed its efficacy to control FHB in corn, soybean and wheat under filed conditions [176], while most of the field trials used a conidial or spore suspension of the BCAs which may give variable and inconsistent results. Ear inoculation with B. amyloliquefaciensand Enterobacter hormaecheiexhibit highly changeable results while treatment of seeds showed more stable results for managing F. verticillioidesinfection and toxin content in maize [150]. On the other hand, B. subtilisstrains SB01, SB04, SB23, and SB24 were performing better to control root rot disease when they were applied to soil than treatment of soybean seeds [145]. Omitting one or more of the above parameters may lead to misevaluation of the selected BCAs.

In some cases, a mixture of two more BCAs maybe advisable in the field for a better disease control in case they have a synergistic effect. For example, mixture of L. plantarumSLG17 and B. amyloliquefaciensFLN13 showed more efficacy in controlling FHB in wheat durum [131].

Although the field trials are exhausting and time consuming, it should consider the application way, application time, effective dose and the best formula in order to precisely evaluate the performance of the selected BCAs and thereafter ensure an effective control of the mycotoxigenic fungal infection and their mycotoxins.

An important obstacle in the commercialization of BCAs is legislation. Current legislations in Europe classify BCAs as Plant Protection Products/Pesticides and hence they must follow the according regulations of the pesticides. This entails that for each BCA the mode of action must be documented and their use should be rational [177].

Advertisement

5. Conclusions and future perspectives

Despite the considerable amount of research that have been done to screen and select effective BCAs to control mycotoxigenic pathogens and their mycotoxins, still there are several pitfalls for using BCAs. For instance, the broad spectrum antagonistic activity of some BCAs such as Trichodermaspp., against several pathogenic fungi may also affect other beneficial organisms present in rhizosphere [178] and this may require more research for target specific BCAs. Even though implementation of a biological control strategy is strongly recommended to replace the use of synthetic pesticides, there are several concerns regarding the biological and environmental stability of BCAs. For example, the population of A. flavusincluding atoxigenic strains is highly diverse. This entails that there is a risk under certain environmental conditions that atoxigenic strains outcross with toxigenic A. flavusand thereafter produce mycotoxins [26, 62]. In addition, it is not guaranteed whether the atoxigenic strains can survive for a long time and what is the short term and long term effect on the soil microenvironment.

Care should be taken that besides successful control of plant pathogens, and BCAs themselves do not produce toxic substances. For instance, C. roseasecretes gliotoxin which is toxic metabolite to human. Also, it was reported that some Trichodermastrains harbor trichothecenes (Tri) genes that translate into proteins similar to FusariumTri proteins [179, 180]. This entails that Trichodermaspp. share the production of trichothecenes toxins (such as T-2 toxin) with Fusariumspp. In addition, gliotoxin and viridian produced by T. harzianum, T. virideand T. virensshowed their phytotoxic effect by reducing seed germination rate in wheat and human toxicity [28]. Therefore, spreading such a microorganism into the environment may impose an extra burden to food safety and public health. Additionally, from the economical point of view, it is necessary to estimate the total cost of application and the need for seasonal reapplication of the BCAs, so it does not exceed costs of current practices.

Controlling mycotoxins is an important aspect in the management of mycotoxigenic pathogens, which adds an extra challenge to find an effective biocontrol agent to control the fungal growth and toxin production simultaneously. It is very well known that one fungal pathogen can produce simultaneously several unrelated mycotoxins, as an example F. graminearumproduces DON and ZEN which both have two different biosynthetic pathways. The scientific research has mostly been focusing to control one type of mycotoxin. Consequently, it will be more valuable to select a single biocontrol agent able to simultaneously suppress the production of both toxins. It is crucial that the selected BCAs are tolerant to mycotoxins [169] which will guarantee the long term efficiency in the field.

Some mycotoxins can be modified by the plant through alteration of their chemical structure “i.e. conjugation to a glucose moiety and hence called plant metabolites of mycotoxins or modified or masked mycotoxins” [181]. For example, DON is transformed to deoxynivalenol-3-glucoside (DON3G) in the plant as a part of the plant defense mechanism. These masked forms of mycotoxins can be hydrolyzed back into their parent forms “DON” inside human and animal body. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to take into account the effect of biocontrol agents on the production of (masked) mycotoxins and to deeply investigate whether the efficacy of the selected BCAs is due to an actual reduction of mycotoxin content based on a direct inhibition of their production by the pathogen or due to enhancing the plant immunity which may increase the plant ability to form more DON3G as in this case the total mycotoxin content in the plant will remain unchanged. Furthermore, the underlying mechanism between the parent mycotoxin, host and BCAs remains obscure and should be further investigated. In addition, other categories of mycotoxins, however they pose health risks, are underexplored such as enniatins, emerging mycotoxins produced by Fusariumspp., [14, 182] have not been tested with BCAs and this necessitates the need for further investigation.

Different BCAs with different modes of action, formulation, treatments, application time were tested showing that it may be difficult to have a single BCA able to diminish all the regulated mycotoxins “one fits for all may not be the case here” [183, 184]. To tackle this problem, maybe a combination of multiple BCAs or with fungicides could be considered. Application dose should be deeply investigated to achieve the desirable control. As in previous research, it has been shown that a suboptimal or sublethal treatment with fungicides [185] may lead to induction of mycotoxins production by the pathogen as a stress response. Searching for new BCAs with novel modes of action can assist to effectively control mycotoxigenic plant pathogens. Recently, Enterobacterspp., a root-inhabiting bacterial endophyte, was reported to have a different mode of action than those previously described through formation of physicochemical barrier that blocks the invasion of F. graminearum. However it is unclear whether this mode of action can be applied to maize and wheat [186]. Finally, the sound implantation of pre-harvest strategies can help in saving crop loss but does not fully ensure the safety of food as the fungal attack can also happen during storage or during processing which necessitate a post-harvest control.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the EU project Horizon 2020-MYCOKEY “Integrated and innovative key actions for mycotoxin management in the food”.

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Advertisement

Other declarations

The authors have mentioned some trade names of certain BCAs for the scientific purpose only and this does not reflect any recommendation for use.

References

  1. 1. FAO. How to Feed the World in 2050. 2009. Available fromhttp://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf[Accessed: January 5, 2018]
  2. 2. Sasson A. Food security for Africa: An urgent global challenge. Agricultural Food Security. 2012;1(2)
  3. 3. Fisher MC, Henk DA, Briggs CJ, et al. Emerging fungal threats to animal, plant and ecosystem health. Nature. 2012;484:186-194
  4. 4. Bennett JW, Klich M, Mycotoxins M. Mycotoxins. Clinical Microbiology Review. 2003;16:497-516
  5. 5. Zain ME. Impact of mycotoxins on humans and animals. Journal of Saudi Chemical Society. 2011;15:129-144
  6. 6. De Ruyck K, De Boevre M, Huybrechts I, et al. Dietary mycotoxins, co-exposure, and carcinogenesis in humans: Short review. Mutation Research, Reviews in Mutation Research. 2015;766:32-41
  7. 7. Pal KK, Mc Spadden Gardener B. Biological control of plant pathogens. Plant Heal Instructor. 2006:1-25
  8. 8. Weller DM. Biological control of soilborne plant pathogens in the rhizosphere with bacteria. Annual Review of Phytopathology. 1988;26:379-407
  9. 9. Agrios GN. Control of plant diseases. Plant Pathology. 1969;28:173-206
  10. 10. El-Tarabily KA, Sivasithamparam K. Potential of yeasts as biocontrol agents of soil-borne fungal plant pathogens and as plant growth promoters. Mycoscience. 2006;47:25-35
  11. 11. Punja ZK, Utkhede RS. Using fungi and yeasts to manage vegetable crop diseases. Trends in Biotechnology. 2003;21:400-407
  12. 12. Droby S, Wisniewski M, Macarisin D, et al. Twenty years of postharvest biocontrol research: Is it time for a new paradigm? Postharvest Biology and Technology. 2009;52:137-145
  13. 13. Torres AM, Barros GG, Palacios SA, et al. Review on pre- and post-harvest management of peanuts to minimize aflatoxin contamination. Food Research International. 2014;62:11-19
  14. 14. Ferrigo D, Raiola A, Causin R. Fusarium toxins in cereals: Occurrence, legislation, factors promoting the appearance and their management. Molecules. 2016;21:627
  15. 15. Yazar S, Omurtag GZ. Fumonisins, trichothecenes and zearalenone in cereals. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2008;9:2062-2090
  16. 16. Pitt JI, Miller JD. A concise history of Mycotoxin research. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jafc.6b04494
  17. 17. Marin S, Ramos AJJ, Cano-Sancho G, et al. Mycotoxins: Occurrence, toxicology, and exposure assessment. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2013;60:218-237
  18. 18. Voss KA, Smith GW, Haschek WM. Fumonisins: Toxicokinetics, mechanism of action and toxicity. Animal Feed Science and Technology. 2007;137:299-325
  19. 19. Wang J, Liu J, Chen H, et al. Characterization ofFusarium graminearuminhibitory lipopeptide from Bacillus subtilis IB. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2007;76:889-894
  20. 20. Nagórska K, Bikowski M, Obuchowski M. Multicellular behaviour and production of a wide variety of toxic substances support usage of Bacillus subtilis as a powerful biocontrol agent. Acta Biochimica Polonica. 2007;54:495-508
  21. 21. Couillerot O, Prigent-Combaret C, Caballero-Mellado J, et al. Pseudomonas fluorescens and closely-related fluorescent pseudomonads as biocontrol agents of soil-borne phytopathogens. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 2009;48:505-512
  22. 22. El-Tarabily KA, Sivasithamparam K. Non-streptomycete actinomycetes as biocontrol agents of soil-borne fungal plant pathogens and as plant growth promoters. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2006;38:1505-1520
  23. 23. Daguerre Y, Siegel K, Edel-Hermann V, et al. Fungal proteins and genes associated with biocontrol mechanisms of soil-borne pathogens: A review. Fungal Biology Reviews. 2014;28:97-125
  24. 24. Benítez T, Rincón AM, Limón MC, et al. Biocontrol mechanisms of Trichoderma strains. International Microbiology. 2004;7:249-260
  25. 25. Alabouvette C, Olivain C, Migheli Q, et al. Microbiological control of soil-borne phytopathogenic fungi with special emphasis on wilt-inducing Fusarium oxysporum. The New Phytologist. 2009;184:529-544
  26. 26. Ehrlich KC. Non-aflatoxigenicAspergillus flavusto prevent aflatoxin contamination in crops: Advantages and limitations. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2014;5:1-9
  27. 27. Abbas H, Zablotowicz R, Bruns HA, et al. Biocontrol of aflatoxin in corn by inoculation with non-aflatoxigenicAspergillus flavusisolates. Biocontrol Science and Technology. 2006;16:437-449
  28. 28. Kim SH, Vujanovic V. Relationship between mycoparasites lifestyles and biocontrol behaviors against Fusarium spp. and mycotoxins production. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2016;100:5257-5272
  29. 29. Howell CR. Mechanisms employed by Trichoderma species in the biological control of plant diseases: The history and evolution of current concepts. Plant Disease. 2003;87:4-10
  30. 30. Barnett HL. The nature of Mycoparasitism by Fungi. Annual Review of Microbiology. 1963;17:1-14
  31. 31. Shoresh M, Harman GE, Mastouri F. Induced systemic resistance and plant responses to fungal biocontrol agents. Annual Review of Phytopathology. 2010;48:21-43
  32. 32. Lugtenberg BJJ, Caradus JR, Johnson LJ. Fungal endophytes for sustainable crop production. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2016;92:1-17
  33. 33. Xue AG, Voldeng HD, Savard ME, et al. Biological control of fusarium head blight of wheat with Clonostachys rosea strain ACM941. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology. 2009;31:169-179
  34. 34. Gupta CP, Dubey RC, Kang SC, et al. Antibiosis-mediated necrotrophic effect of Pseudomonas GRC 2 against two fungal plant pathogens. Current Science. 2001;81:91-94
  35. 35. Zhao Y, Selvaraj JN, Xing F, et al. Antagonistic action of Bacillus subtilis strain SG6 onFusarium graminearum. PLoS One. 2014;9:1-11
  36. 36. Etcheverry MG, Scandolara A, Nesci A, et al. Biological interactions to select biocontrol agents against toxigenic strains ofAspergillus flavusand fusarium verticillioides from maize. Mycopathologia. 2009;167:287-295
  37. 37. Vinale F, Sivasithamparam K, Ghisalberti EL, et al. Trichoderma-plant-pathogen interactions. Soil Biology and Biochemistry. 2008;40:1-10
  38. 38. Calistru C, McLean M, Berjak P. In vitro studies on the potential for biological control ofAspergillus flavusand Fusarium moniliforme by Trichoderma species. A study of the production of extracellular metabolites by Trichoderma species. Mycopathologia. 1997;137:115-124
  39. 39. Romero D, de Vicente A, Rakotoaly RH, et al. The Iturin and Fengycin families of Lipopeptides are key factors in antagonism of Bacillus subtilis toward Podosphaera fusca. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 2007;20:430-440
  40. 40. Veras FF, Correa APF, Welke JE, et al. Inhibition of mycotoxin-producing fungi by Bacillus strains isolated from fish intestines. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2016;238:23-32
  41. 41. Mohammadipour M, Mousivand M, Salehi Jouzani G, et al. Molecular and biochemical characterization of Iranian surfactin-producing Bacillus subtilis isolates and evaluation of their biocontrol potential againstAspergillus flavusand Colletotrichum gloeosporioides. Canadian Journal of Microbiology. 2009;55:395-404
  42. 42. Crane JM, Gibson DM, Vaughan RH, et al. Iturin levels on wheat spikes linked to biological control of Fusarium head blight by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. Phytopathology. 2013;103:146-155
  43. 43. Maurhofer M, Baehler E, Notz R, et al. Cross talk between 2,4-Diacetylphloroglucinol-producing biocontrol pseudomonads on wheat roots. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2004;70:1990-1998
  44. 44. Mavrodi OV, McSpadden Gardener BB, Mavrodi DV, et al. Genetic diversity of phlD from 2,4-Diacetylphloroglucinol-producing fluorescent Pseudomonas spp. Phytopathology. 2001;91:35-43
  45. 45. Brazelton JN, Pfeufer EE, Sweat TA, et al. 2,4-Diacetylphloroglucinol alters plant root development. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions. 2008;21:1349-1358
  46. 46. Shanahan P, O’Sullivan DJ, Simpson P, et al. Isolation of 2,4-diacetylphloroglucinol from a fluorescent pseudomonad and investigation of physiological parameters influencing its production. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1992;58:353-358
  47. 47. De La Fuente L, Mavrodi DV, Landa BB, et al. phlD-based genetic diversity and detection of genotypes of 2,4- diacetylphloroglucinol-producing Pseudomonas fluorescens. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2006;56:64-78
  48. 48. Müller T, Behrendt U, Ruppel S, et al. Fluorescent pseudomonads in the Phyllosphere of wheat: Potential antagonists against fungal Phytopathogens. Current Microbiology. 2016;72:383-389
  49. 49. Gao M, Glenn AE, Blacutt AA, et al. Fungal lactamases: Their occurrence and function. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2017;8:1775
  50. 50. Lakhesar DPS, Backhouse D, Kristiansen P. Nutritional constraints on displacement of Fusarium pseudograminearum from cereal straw by antagonists. Biological Control. 2010;55:241-247
  51. 51. Dawson WAJM, Jestoi M, Rizzo A, et al. Field evaluation of fungal competitors of Fusarium culmorum and F. Graminearum, causal agents of ear blight of winter wheat, for the control of Mycotoxin production in grain. Biocontrol Science and Technology. 2004;14:783-799
  52. 52. Cotty PJ. Virulence and cultural characteristics of twoAspergillus flavusstrains pathogenic on cotton. Phytopathology. 1989;79:808-814
  53. 53. Cotty PJ, Bhatnagar D. Variability among atoxigenicAspergillus flavusstrains in ability to prevent aflatoxin contamination and production of aflatoxin biosynthetic pathway enzymes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1994;60:2248-2251
  54. 54. Cotty PJ. Effect of Atoxigenic strains ofAspergillus flavuson Aflatoxin contamination of developing cottonseed. Plant Disease. 1990;74:233-235
  55. 55. Atehnkeng J, Ojiambo PS, Cotty PJ, et al. Field efficacy of a mixture of atoxigenicAspergillus flavuslink: FR vegetative compatibility groups in preventing aflatoxin contamination in maize (Zea mays L.). Biological Control. 2014;72:62-70
  56. 56. Dorner JW. Biological control of aflatoxin contamination in corn using a nontoxigenic strain ofAspergillus flavus. Journal of Food Protection. 2009;72:801-804
  57. 57. Dorner JW. Efficacy of a biopesticide for control of aflatoxins in corn. Journal of Food Protection. 2010;73:495-499
  58. 58. Alaniz Zanon MS, Barros GG, Chulze SN. Non-aflatoxigenicAspergillus flavusas potential biocontrol agents to reduce aflatoxin contamination in peanuts harvested in northern Argentina. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2016;231:63-68
  59. 59. Alaniz Zanon MS, Chiotta ML, Giaj-Merlera G, et al. Evaluation of potential biocontrol agent for aflatoxin in Argentinean peanuts. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2013;162:220-225
  60. 60. Horn BW, Dorner JW. Effect of nontoxigenicAspergillus flavusandA. parasiticuson aflatoxin contamination of wounded peanut seeds inoculated with agricultural soil containing natural fungal populations. Biocontrol Science and Technology. 2009;19:249-262
  61. 61. Hulikunte Mallikarjunaiah N, Jayapala N, Puttaswamy H, et al. Characterization of non-aflatoxigenic strains ofAspergillus flavusas potential biocontrol agent for the management of aflatoxin contamination in groundnut. Microbial Pathogenesis. 2017;102:21-28
  62. 62. Hruska Z, Rajasekaran K, Yao H, et al. Co-inoculation of aflatoxigenic and non-aflatoxigenic strains ofAspergillus flavusto study fungal invasion, colonization, and competition in maize kernels. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2014;5:122. DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00122
  63. 63. Chang P-K, Ehrlich KC. Cyclopiazonic acid biosynthesis byAspergillus flavus. Toxin Reviews. 2011;30:79-89
  64. 64. Uka V, Moore GG, Arroyo-Manzanares N, et al. Unravelling the diversity of the cyclopiazonic acid family of mycotoxins inAspergillus flavusby UHPLC triple-TOF HRMS. Toxins. 2017;9:35. DOI: 10.3390/toxins9010035
  65. 65. Abbas HK, Zablotowicz RM, Horn BW, et al. Comparison of major biocontrol strains of non-aflatoxigenicAspergillus flavusfor the reduction of aflatoxins and cyclopiazonic acid in maize. Food Addit Contam - Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 2011;28:198-208
  66. 66. Zhou L, Wei D, Selvaraj JN, et al. A strain ofAspergillus flavusfrom China shows potential as a biocontrol agent for aflatoxin contamination. Biocontrol Science and Technology. 2015;25:583-592
  67. 67. Mauro A, Battilani P, Cotty PJ. AtoxigenicAspergillus flavusendemic to Italy for biocontrol of aflatoxins in maize. BioControl. 2015;60:125-134
  68. 68. Verma M, Brar SK, Tyagi RD, et al. Antagonistic fungi, Trichoderma spp.: Panoply of biological control. Biochemical Engineering Journal. 2007;37:1-20
  69. 69. Altomare C, Norvell WA, Björkman T, et al. Solubilization of phosphates and micronutrients by the plant-growth- promoting and biocontrol fungus Trichoderma harzianum Rifai 1295-22. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1999;65:2926-2933
  70. 70. Harman GE, Howell CR, Viterbo A, et al. Trichoderma species - opportunistic, avirulent plant symbionts. Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 2004;2:43-56
  71. 71. Druzhinina IS, Seidl-Seiboth V, Herrera-Estrella A, et al. Trichoderma: The genomics of opportunistic success. Nature Reviews. Microbiology. 2011;9:749-759
  72. 72. Matarese F, Sarrocco S, Gruber S, et al. Biocontrol of Fusarium head blight: Interactions between Trichoderma and mycotoxigenic Fusarium. Microbiology. 2012;158:98-106
  73. 73. Yates IE, Meredith F, Smart W, et al. Trichoderma viride suppresses fumonisin B1 production byFusarium moniliforme. Journal of Food Protection. 1999;62:1326-1332
  74. 74. Sempere F, Santamarina MP. Antagonistic interactions between fungal rice pathogenFusarium verticillioides(Sacc.) Nirenberg andTrichoderma harzianumRifai. Annales de Microbiologie. 2009;59:259-266
  75. 75. Sempere F, Santamarina MP. In vitro biocontrol analysis of Alternaria alternata (Fr.) Keissler under different environmental conditions. Mycopathologia. 2007;163:183-190
  76. 76. Dal Bello GM, Mónaco CI, Simón MR. Biological control of seedling bright of wheat caused byFusarium graminearumwith beneficial rhizosphere microorganisms. World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2002;18:627-636
  77. 77. Inch S, Gilbert J. Effect ofTrichoderma harzianumon perithecial production of Gibberella zeae on wheat straw. Biocontrol Science and Technology. 2007;17:635-646
  78. 78. Schoneberg A, Musa T, Voegele RT, et al. The potential of antagonistic fungi for control ofFusarium graminearumandFusarium crookwellensevaries depending on the experimental approach. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2015;118:1165-1179
  79. 79. Roberti R, Veronesi AR, Cesari A, et al. Induction of PR proteins and resistance by the biocontrol agentClonostachys roseain wheat plants infected withFusarium culmorum. Plant Science. 2008;175:339-347
  80. 80. Samsudin NIP, Medina A, Magan N. Relationship between environmental conditions, carbon utilisation patterns and niche overlap indices of the mycotoxigenic speciesFusarium verticillioidesand the biocontrol agentClonostachys rosea. Fungal Ecology. 2016;24:44-52
  81. 81. Mamarabadi M, Jensen DF, Lübeck M. An N-acetyl-β-d-glucosaminidase gene, cr-nag1, from the biocontrol agentClonostachys roseais up-regulated in antagonistic interactions withFusarium culmorum. Mycological Research. 2009;113:33-43
  82. 82. Vujanovic V, Goh YK. Sphaerodes mycoparasitica sp. nov., a new biotrophic mycoparasite onFusarium avenaceum,F. graminearumandF. oxysporum. Mycological Research. 2009;113:1172-1180
  83. 83. Vujanovic V, Goh YK. Qpcr quantification of sphaerodes mycoparasitica biotrophic mycoparasite interaction withFusarium graminearum: In vitro and in planta assays. Archives of Microbiology. 2012;194:707-717
  84. 84. Palumbo JD, O’Keeffe TL, Abbas HK. Isolation of maize soil and rhizosphere bacteria with antagonistic activity againstAspergillus flavusandFusarium verticillioides. Journal of Food Protection. 2007;70:1615-1621
  85. 85. Heil M, Bostock RM. Induced systemic resistance (ISR) against pathogens in the context of induced plant defences. Annals of Botany. 2002;89:503-512
  86. 86. Choudhary DK, Prakash A, Johri BN. Induced systemic resistance (ISR) in plants: Mechanism of action. Indian Journal of Microbiology. 2007;47:289-297
  87. 87. Pieterse CMJ, Zamioudis C, Berendsen RL, et al. Induced systemic resistance by beneficial microbes. Annual Review of Phytopathology. 2014;52:347-375
  88. 88. Mantelin S, Touraine B. Plant growth-promoting bacteria and nitrate availability: Impacts on root development and nitrate uptake. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2004;55:27-34
  89. 89. Alimi M, Javad M, Darzi MT. Characterization and application of microbial antagonists for control of Fusarium head blight of wheat caused byFusarium graminearumusing single and mixture strain of antagonistic bacteria on resistance and susceptible cultivars. African Journal of Microbiological Research. 2012;6:326-334
  90. 90. Hernández-Rodríguez A, Heydrich-Pérez M, Acebo-Guerrero Y, et al. Antagonistic activity of Cuban native rhizobacteria againstFusarium verticillioides(Sacc.) Nirenb. In maize (Zea maysL.). Applied Soil Ecology. 2008;39:180-186
  91. 91. Henkes GJ, Jousset A, Bonkowski M, et al.Pseudomonas fluorescensCHA0 maintains carbon delivery toFusarium graminearum-infected roots and prevents reduction in biomass of barley shoots through systemic interactions. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2011;62:4337-4344
  92. 92. Khan MR, Fischer S, Egan D, et al. Biological control of Fusarium seedling blight disease of wheat and barley. Phytopathology. 2006;69:386-394
  93. 93. Jochum CC, Osborne LE, Yuen GY. Fusarium head blight biological control with Lysobacter enzymogenes strain C3. Biological Control. 2006;39:336-344
  94. 94. Danielsen S, Funck Jensen D. Fungal endophytes from stalks of tropical maize and grasses: Isolation, identification, and screening for antagonism againstFusarium verticillioidesin maize stalks. Biocontrol Science and Technology. 1999;9:545-553
  95. 95. Aiyaz M, Divakara ST, Nayaka SC, et al. Application of beneficial rhizospheric microbes for the mitigation of seed-borne mycotoxigenic fungal infection and mycotoxins in maize. Biocontrol Science and Technology. 2015;25:1105-1119
  96. 96. Ferrigo D, Raiola A, Piccolo E, et al. Trichoderma harzianum T22 induces in maize systemic resistance againstFusarium verticillioides. Journal of Plant Pathology. 2014;96:133-142
  97. 97. Mukherjee M, Mukherjee PK, Horwitz BA, et al. Trichoderma-plant-pathogen interactions: Advances in genetics of biological control. Indian Journal of Microbiology. 2012;52:522-529
  98. 98. Porras-Alfaro A, Bayman P. Hidden fungi, emergent properties: Endophytes and microbiomes. Annual Review of Phytopathology. 2011;49:291-315
  99. 99. Mousa WK, Shearer CR, Limay-Rios V, et al. Bacterial endophytes from wild maize suppressFusarium graminearumin modern maize and inhibit mycotoxin accumulation. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2015;6:805
  100. 100. Rabiey M, Shaw MW.Piriformospora indicareduces fusarium head blight disease severity and mycotoxin DON contamination in wheat under UK weather conditions. Plant Pathology. 2016;65:940-952
  101. 101. Rabiey M, Ullah I, Shaw MW. The endophytic fungusPiriformospora indicaprotects wheat from fusarium crown rot disease in simulated UK autumn conditions. Plant Pathology. 2015;64:1029-1040
  102. 102. Waller F, Achatz B, Baltruschat H, et al. The endophytic fungusPiriformospora indicareprograms barley to salt-stress tolerance, disease resistance, and higher yield. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2005;102:13386-13391
  103. 103. Deshmukh SD, Kogel K-H.Piriformospora indicaprotects barley from root rot caused byFusarium graminearum. Journal of Plant Disease Protocol. 2007;114:263-268
  104. 104. Varma A, Verma S, Sudha, et al. Piriformospora indica, a cultivable plant-growth-promoting root endophyte. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1999;65:2741-2744
  105. 105. Sherameti I, Shahollari B, Venus Y, et al. The endophytic fungusPiriformospora indicastimulates the expression of nitrate reductase and the starch-degrading enzyme glucan-water dikinase in tobacco and Arabidopsis roots through a homeodomain transcription factor that binds to a conserved motif in. The Journal of Biological Chemistry. 2005;280:26241-26247
  106. 106. Ogórek R, Plaskowska E.Epicoccum nigrumfor biocontrol agents in vitro of plant fungal pathogens. Communications in Agricultural and Applied Biological Sciences. 2011;76:691-697
  107. 107. Musyimi SL, Muthomi JW, Narla RD, et al. Efficacy of biological control and cultivar resistance on Fusarium head blight and T-2 toxin contamination in wheat. American Journal of Plant Sciences. 2012;3:599-607
  108. 108. Jensen BD, Knorr K, Nicolaisen M. In vitro competition betweenFusarium graminearumandEpicoccum nigrumon media and wheat grains. European Journal of Plant Pathology. 2016;146:657-670
  109. 109. Sempere F, Saiilamarina MP. Study of the interactions betweenPenicillium oxalicumCurrie & thom and Alternaria alternata (fr.) keissler. Brazilian Journal of Microbiology. 2010;41:700-706
  110. 110. Ammar HAM, Awny NM, Fahmy HM. Influence of environmental conditions of atoxigenicAspergillus flavusHFB1 on biocontrol of patulin produced by a novel apple contaminant isolate, A. terreusHAP1, in vivo and in vitro. Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology. 2017;12:36-44
  111. 111. Bleve G, Grieco F, Cozzi G, et al. Isolation of epiphytic yeasts with potential for biocontrol ofAspergillus carbonariusandA. nigeron grape. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2006;108:204-209
  112. 112. Dimakopoulou M, Tjamos SE, Antoniou PP, et al. Phyllosphere grapevine yeastAureobasidium pullulansreducesAspergillus carbonarius(sour rot) incidence in wine-producing vineyards in Greece. Biological Control. 2008;46:158-165
  113. 113. Afsharmanesh H, Ahmadzadeh M, Javan-Nikkhah M, et al. Improvement in biocontrol activity of Bacillus subtilis UTB1 againstAspergillus flavususing gamma-irradiation. Crop Protection. 2014;60:83-92
  114. 114. Doster MA, Cotty PJ, Michailides TJ. Evaluation of the AtoxigenicAspergillus flavusstrain AF36 in pistachio orchards. Plant Disease. 2014;98:948-956
  115. 115. Anjaiah V, Thakur RP, Koedam N. Evaluation of bacteria and Trichoderma for biocontrol of pre-harvest seed infection byAspergillus flavusin groundnut. Biocontrol Science and Technology. 2006;16:431-436
  116. 116. Desai S, Thakur RP, Rao VP, et al. Characterization of isolates of Trichoderma for biocontrol potential againstAspergillus flavusinfection in groundnut. International Arachis Newsletter. 2000:57-59
  117. 117. Sultan Y, Magan N. Impact of a Streptomyces (AS1) strain and its metabolites on control ofAspergillus flavusand aflatoxin B1contamination in vitro and in stored peanuts. Biocontrol Science and Technology. 2011;21:1437-1455
  118. 118. Gong AD, Li HP, Shen L, et al. The Shewanella algae strain YM8 produces volatiles with strong inhibition activity against Aspergillus pathogens and aflatoxins. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2015;6:1-12
  119. 119. Dorner JW, Horn BW. Separate and combined applications of nontoxigenicAspergillus flavusandA. parasiticusfor biocontrol of aflatoxin in peanuts. Mycopathologia. 2007;163:215-223
  120. 120. Atehnkeng J, Ojiambo PS, Ikotun T, et al. Evaluation of atoxigenic isolates ofAspergillus flavusas potential biocontrol agents for aflatoxin in maize. Food Addition Contamination - Part A Chemical Analysis Control Expo Risk Assess. 2008;25:1264-1271
  121. 121. Nesci AV, Bluma RV, Etcheverry MG. In vitro selection of maize rhizobacteria to study potential biological control of Aspergillus section Flavi and aflatoxin production. European Journal of Plant Pathology. 2005;113:159-171
  122. 122. Degola F, Berni E, Restivo FM. Laboratory tests for assessing efficacy of atoxigenicAspergillus flavusstrains as biocontrol agents. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2011;146:235-243
  123. 123. Probst C, Bandyopadhyay R, Price LE, et al. Identification of AtoxigenicAspergillus flavusisolates to reduce Aflatoxin contamination of maize in Kenya. Plant Disease. 2011;95:212-218
  124. 124. Al-Saad LA, Al-Badran AI, Al-Jumayli SA, et al. Impact of bacterial biocontrol agents on aflatoxin biosynthetic genes, aflD and aflR expression, and phenotypic aflatoxin B1 production byAspergillus flavusunder different environmental and nutritional regimes. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2016;217:123-129
  125. 125. Sailaja PR, Podile AR, Reddanna P. Biocontrol strain of Bacillus subtilis AF 1 rapidly induces lipoxygenase in groundnut (Arachis hypogaeaL.) compared to crown rot pathogenAspergillus niger. European Journal of Plant Pathology. 1998;104:125-132
  126. 126. Nagaraja H, Chennappa G, Rakesh S, et al. Antifungal activity ofAzotobacter nigricansagainst trichothecene-producing Fusarium species associated with cereals. Food Science and Biotechnology. 2016;25:1197-1204
  127. 127. Palazzini JM, Groenenboom-de Haas BH, Torres AM, et al. Biocontrol and population dynamics of fusarium spp. on wheat stubble in Argentina. Plant Pathology. 2013;62:859-866
  128. 128. Gromadzka K, Chelkowski J, Popiel D, et al. Solid substrate bioassay to evaluate the effect of Trichoderma and Clonostachys on the production of zearalenone by Fusarium species. World Mycotoxin Journal. 2009;2:45-52
  129. 129. Luongo L, Galli M, Corazza L, et al. Potential of fungal antagonists for biocontrol of Fusarium spp. in wheat and maize through competition in crop debris. Biocontrol Science and Technology. 2005;15:229-242
  130. 130. Comby M, Gacoin M, Robineau M, et al. Screening of wheat endophytes as biological control agents against Fusarium head blight using two different in vitro tests. Microbiological Research. 2017;202:11-20
  131. 131. Baffoni L, Gaggia F, Dalanaj N, et al. Microbial inoculants for the biocontrol of Fusarium spp. in durum wheat. BMC Microbiology. 2015;15:8-10
  132. 132. Wachowska U, Głowacka K. Antagonistic interactions betweenAureobasidium pullulansandFusarium culmorum, a fungal pathogen of winter wheat. BioControl. 2014;59:635-645
  133. 133. Ferre FS, Santamarina MP. Efficacy of trichoderma harzianum in suppression ofFusarium culmorum. Annales de Microbiologie. 2010;60:335-340
  134. 134. Vujanovic V, Goh YK. Sphaerodes mycoparasitica biotrophic mycoparasite of 3- acetyldeoxynivalenol- and 15-acetyldeoxynivalenol-producing toxigenicFusarium graminearumchemotypes. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 2011;316:136-143
  135. 135. Yoshida S, Ohba A, Liang YM, et al. Specificity of Pseudomonas isolates on healthy and Fusarium head blight-infected Spikelets of wheat heads. Microbial Ecology. 2012;64:214-225
  136. 136. Zalila-Kolsi I, Ben Mahmoud A, Ali H, et al. Antagonist effects ofBacillusspp. strains againstFusarium graminearumfor protection of durum wheat (Triticum turgidumL. subsp. durum). Microbiological Research. 2016;192:148-158
  137. 137. Khan NI, Schisler DA, Boehm MJ, et al. Field testing of antagonists of Fusarium head blight incited by Gibberella zeae. Biological Control. 2004;29:245-255
  138. 138. Shi C, Yan P, Li J, et al. Biocontrol ofFusarium graminearumgrowth and deoxynivalenol production in wheat kernels with bacterial antagonists. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2014;11:1094-1105
  139. 139. Hu W, Gao Q, Hamada MS, et al. Potential ofPseudomonas chlororaphissubsp. aurantiaca strain Pcho10 as a biocontrol agent againstFusarium graminearum. Phytopathology. 2014;104:1289-1297
  140. 140. Goh Kheng Y, Vujanovic V. Biotrophic mycoparasitic interactions betweenSphaerodes mycoparasiticaand phytopathogenicFusariumspecies. Biocontrol Science and Technology. 2010;20:891-902
  141. 141. Crane JM, Bergstrom GC. Spatial distribution and antifungal interactions of a Bacillus biological control agent on wheat surfaces. Biological Control. 2014;78:23-32
  142. 142. Schisler DA, Core AB, Boehm MJ, et al. Population dynamics of the Fusarium head blight biocontrol agentCryptococcus flavescensOH 182.9 on wheat anthers and heads. Biological Control. 2014;70:17-27
  143. 143. Moussa TAA, Almaghrabi OA, Abdel-Moneim TS. Biological control of the wheat root rot caused byFusarium graminearumusing some PGPR strains in Saudi Arabia. The Annals of Applied Biology. 2013;163:72-81
  144. 144. Palazzini JM, Alberione E, Torres A, et al. Biological control ofFusarium graminearumsensu stricto, causal agent of Fusarium head blight of wheat, using formulated antagonists under field conditions in Argentina. Biological Control. 2016;94:56-61
  145. 145. Zhang JX, Xue AG, Tambong JT. Evaluation of seed and soil treatments with novel Bacillus subtilis strains for control of soybean root rot caused byFusarium oxysporumandF. graminearum. Plant Disease. 2009;93:7
  146. 146. Dalie DKD, Deschamps a M, Atanasova-Penichon V, et al. Potential ofPediococcus pentosaceus(L006) isolated from maize leaf to suppress fumonisin-producing fungal growth. Journal of Food Protection. 2010;73:1129-1137
  147. 147. Nayaka SC, Udaya Shankar AC, Reddy MS, et al. Control ofFusarium verticillioides, cause of ear rot of maize, byPseudomonas fluorescens. Pest Management Science. 2009;65:769-775
  148. 148. Pereira P, Nesci A, Etcheverry M. Effects of biocontrol agents on Fusarium verticillioides count and fumonisin content in the maize agroecosystem: Impact on rhizospheric bacterial and fungal groups. Biological Control. 2007;42:281-287
  149. 149. Pereira P, Nesci A, Etcheverry MG. Efficacy of bacterial seed treatments for the control ofFusarium verticillioidesin maize. BioControl. 2009;54:103-111
  150. 150. Pereira P, Nesci A, Castillo C, et al. Impact of bacterial biological control agents on fumonisin B1 content andFusarium verticillioidesinfection of field-grown maize. Biological Control. 2010;53:258-266
  151. 151. Cavaglieri L, Orlando J, Etcheverry M. In vitro influence of bacterial mixtures on Fusarium verticillioides growth and fumonisin B1 production: Effect of seeds treatment on maize root colonization. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 2005;41:390-396
  152. 152. Cavaglieri L, Orlando J, Rodríguez MI, et al. Biocontrol ofBacillus subtilisagainstFusarium verticillioidesin vitro and at the maize root level. Research in Microbiology. 2005;156:748-754
  153. 153. Figueroa-López AM, Cordero-Ramírez JD, Martínez-Álvarez JC, et al. Rhizospheric bacteria of maize with potential for biocontrol ofFusarium verticillioides. Springerplus. DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-1780-x
  154. 154. Bacon CW, Yates IE, Hinton DM, et al. Biological control ofFusarium moniliformein maize. Environmental Health Perspectives. 2001;109:325-332
  155. 155. Samsudin NIP, Magan N. Efficacy of potential biocontrol agents for control of Fusarium verticillioides and fumonisin B 1 under different environmental conditions. World Mycotoxin Journal. 2016;9:205-213
  156. 156. Samsudin NIP, Rodriguez A, Medina A, et al. Efficacy of fungal and bacterial antagonists for controlling growth, FUM1 gene expression and fumonisin B1production byFusarium verticillioideson maize cobs of different ripening stages. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2017;246:72-79
  157. 157. Cavaglieri L, Passone A, Etcheverry M. Screening procedures for selecting rhizobacteria with biocontrol effects upon Fusarium verticillioides growth and fumonisin B1 production. Research in Microbiology. 2004;155:747-754
  158. 158. Pereira P, Nesci A, Castillo C, et al. Field studies on the relationship between Fusarium verticillioides and maize (Zea maysL.): Effect of biocontrol agents on fungal infection and toxin content of grains at harvest. International Journal of Agronomics. 2011;2011:1-7
  159. 159. Johansson PM, Johnsson L, Gerhardson B. Suppression of wheat-seedling diseases caused by Fusarium culmorum and Microdochium nivale using bacterial seed treatment. Plant Pathology. 2003;52:219-227
  160. 160. Audenaert K, Vanheule A, Höfte M, et al. Deoxynivalenol: A major player in the multifaceted response of Fusarium to its environment. Toxins. 2013;6:1-19. DOI: 10.3390/toxins6010001
  161. 161. Li Y, Wang Z, Beier RC, et al. T-2 toxin, a trichothecene mycotoxin: Review of toxicity, metabolism, and analytical methods. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2011;59:3441-3453
  162. 162. Goswami RS, Kistler HC. Heading for disaster:Fusarium graminearumon cereal crops. Molecular Plant Pathology. 2004;5:515-525
  163. 163. Palazzini JM, Ramirez ML, Torres AM, et al. Potential biocontrol agents for Fusarium head blight and deoxynivalenol production in wheat. Crop Protection. 2007;26:1702-1710
  164. 164. Khan MR, Doohan FM. Bacterium-mediated control of Fusarium head blight disease of wheat and barley and associated mycotoxin contamination of grain. Biological Control. 2009;48:42-47
  165. 165. Tian Y, Tan Y, Yan Z, et al. Antagonistic and detoxification potentials of Trichoderma isolates for control of Zearalenone (ZEN) producingFusarium graminearum. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2018;8:2710
  166. 166. Kosawang C, Karlsson M, Vélëz H, et al. Zearalenone detoxification by zearalenone hydrolase is important for the antagonistic ability ofClonostachys roseaagainst mycotoxigenicFusarium graminearum. Fungal Biology. 2014;118:364-373
  167. 167. Takahashi-Ando N, Kimura M, Kakeya H, et al. A novel lactonohydrolase responsible for the detoxification of zearalenone: Enzyme purification and gene cloning. The Biochemical Journal. 2002;365:1-6
  168. 168. Takahashi-ando N, Ohsato S, Shibata T, et al. Metabolism of Zearalenone by genetically Modified organisms expressing the Detoxi cation gene from. Microbiology. 2004;70:3239-3245
  169. 169. Karlsson M, Durling MB, Choi J, et al. Insights on the evolution of mycoparasitism from the genome of clonostachys rosea. Genome Biological Evolution. 2015;7:465-480
  170. 170. Chatterjee S, Kuang Y, Splivallo R, et al. Interactions among filamentous fungiAspergillus niger,Fusarium verticillioidesandClonostachys rosea: Fungal biomass, diversity of secreted metabolites and fumonisin production. BMC Microbiology. 2016;16:83
  171. 171. Smith MC, Madec S, Coton E, et al. Natural co-occurrence of mycotoxins in foods and feeds and their in vitro combined toxicological effects. Toxins. 2016;8:94. DOI: 10.3390/toxins8040094
  172. 172. Bayman P, Baker JL, Mahoney NE. Aspergillus on tree nuts: Incidence and associations. Mycopathologia. 2003;155:161-169
  173. 173. Perrone G, Gallo A, Logrieco AF. Biodiversity of Aspergillus section Flavi in Europe in relation to the management of aflatoxin risk. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2014;5:377
  174. 174. Niknejad F, Zaini F, Faramarzi M, et al.Candida parapsilosisas a potent biocontrol agent against growth and Aflatoxin production byAspergillusspecies. Iran Journal of Public Health. 2012;41:72-80
  175. 175. Jung B, Park SY, Lee YW, et al. Biological efficacy ofStreptomycessp. strain BN1 against the cereal head blight pathogenFusarium graminearum. Plant Pathology Journal. 2013;29:52-58
  176. 176. Xue AG, Chen YH, Santanna SMR, et al. Efficacy of CLO-1 biofungicide in suppressing perithecial production by Gibberella zeae on crop residues. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology. 2014;36:161-169
  177. 177. Villaverde JJ, Sevilla-Morán B, Sandín-España P, et al. Biopesticides in the framework of the European pesticide regulation (EC) no. 1107/2009. Pest Management Science. 2014;70:2-5
  178. 178. Brimner TA, Boland GJ. A review of the non-target effects of fungi used to biologically control plant diseases. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2003;100:3-16
  179. 179. Tijerino A, Hermosa R, Cardoza RE, Moraga J, Malmierca MG, Aleu J, Collado IG, Monte E, Gutierrez S. Overexpression of theTrichoderma brevicompactumtri5 gene: Effect on the expression of the trichodermin biosynthetic genes and on tomato seedlings. Toxins. 2011;3:1220-1232. DOI: 10.3390/toxins3091220
  180. 180. Keswani C, Mishra S, Sarma BK, Singh SP, Singh HB. Unraveling the efficient applications of secondary metabolites of variousTrichodermaspp. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2014;98:533-544. DOI: 10.1007/s00253-013-5344-5
  181. 181. Berthiller F, Crews C, Dall'Asta C, Saeger SD, Haesaert G, Karlovsky P, Oswald IP, Seefelder W, Speijers G, Stroka J. Masked mycotoxins: A review. Molecular Nutrition & Food Research. 2013;57:165-186. DOI: 10.1002/mnfr.201100764
  182. 182. Jestoi M. Emerging Fusarium -Mycotoxins Fusaproliferin, Beauvericin, Enniatins, and Moniliformin—A review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2008;48:21-49
  183. 183. Abbas HK, Accinelli C, Thomas Shier W. Biological control of aflatoxin contamination in U.S. crops and the use of bioplastic formulations ofAspergillus flavusbiocontrol strains to optimize application strategies. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2017;65:7081-7087
  184. 184. Mancini V, Romanazzi G. Seed treatments to control seedborne fungal pathogens of vegetable crops. Pest Management Science. 2014;70:860-868
  185. 185. Audenaert K, Callewaert E, Höfte M, et al. Hydrogen peroxide induced by the fungicide prothioconazole triggers deoxynivalenol (DON) production byFusarium graminearum. BMC Microbiology. 2010;10:112. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2180-10-112
  186. 186. Mousa WK, Shearer C, Limay-Rios V, et al. Root-hair endophyte stacking in finger millet creates a physicochemical barrier to trap the fungal pathogenFusarium graminearum. Nature Microbiology. DOI: 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.167

Written By

Mohamed F. Abdallah, Maarten Ameye, Sarah De Saeger, Kris Audenaert and Geert Haesaert

Submitted: February 20th, 2018 Reviewed: March 9th, 2018 Published: November 5th, 2018