Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Fungi and Oomycetes–Allies in Eliminating Environmental Pathogens

Written By

Iasmina Luca

Submitted: 01 July 2022 Reviewed: 12 July 2022 Published: 17 August 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.106498

From the Edited Volume

Animal Welfare - New Insights

Edited by Shao-Wen Hung, Chia-Chi Chen, Chung-Lun Lu and Tseng-Ting Kao

Chapter metrics overview

113 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Fungi and oomycetes are the subjects of numerous current research studies. These are natural agents that can control parasitic populations, and arthropod populations with a role in the transmission of various diseases but can also eliminate various pollutants that are found in the external environment. Therefore, their conservation and exploitation are a global necessity, due to the benefits they confer on the quality of life of animals, but also of humans. Science must be aimed at finding a balance between the different constituents of the ecosystem and establishing coexistence relationships that are beneficial to all. Thus, research should be directed at investigating the potential actions of fungi and oomycetes against the various agents with which they coexist naturally in the external environment. This chapter provides information regarding the mechanism of action of these natural constituents and updates information on the species of fungi and oomycetes that have been studied so far. Thus, readers can have a base in this field and can further exploit what they have discovered to continue to improve the welfare of animals, addressing an ecological and healthy vision.

Keywords

  • ecological action
  • fungi
  • oomycetes
  • cleaning

1. Introduction

Plants and animals coexist in a certain balance within the ecosystem, together with fungi, oomycetes, bacteria, viruses, and parasites.

Currently, about 75.000 species of fungi have been described, many of which are still unclassified [1]. Also, in the category of fungi, oomycetes have been included in the past. Detailed studies have highlighted their morphological and functional differences, the oomycetes being now included in the phylum Oomycota [2]. Both fungi and oomycetes are found in various symbiotic relationships and can be saprophytes or parasites [3]. These relationships can be exploited in creating ideal habitats for animals.

Many bacteria, viruses, and single-celled parasites can be carried by arthropods (insects, mites) or other vectors (amoebas) and can be sources of infection, causing many diseases in animals. Fungi and oomycetes can use different mechanisms by which they can eliminate these vectors. They can also be involved in the detoxification of the environment from numerous pollutants and can be considered important agents in the biocontrol of some animal parasites. In removing amoebae, fungi use hyphae that function as “sticky extensions” that capture “prey” or can parasitize internally, causing amoebae death by sporulation [4]. Sprayed in the form of a solution on the body of insects, more precisely on the body of mosquitoes, the fungi attach themselves through the conidia to their cuticle. Then begins the germination and dispersal of spores in the hemocoel. At this level, the evolutionary cycle of fungi continues with the multiplication of hyphae, which gradually kill the host by colonizing the trachea and producing toxins, after which the fungi leave their body [5, 6]. In eliminating the larval forms of some insects, the fungi also through the conidia block the siphon region and thus determine the death by asphyxiation of the hosts [6]. The same mechanisms have been reported in the elimination of evolutionary stages of ticks. An important role in the fixation and adhesion of conidia at the cuticular level is played by hydrophobins and adhesins, as proteins, but also lipase and esterase, as enzymes [7, 8, 9].

Certain pollutants, such as pesticides, can be battered by various fungi through numerous chemical processes (deoxygenation, hydroxylation, esterification, or dehydrogenation) [10]. Certain heavy metals in the environment can be inactivated by organic acids and siderophores (metabolites) of fungi [11]. Enzymes also play an important role in bioremediation, among them can be mentioned: cellulase, lipase, protease, peroxidase, amylase, chitinase, catalase, laccase, xylanase, etc. [12].

In the management of parasitic populations, especially nematode populations found in animals, fungi use complex mechanisms to eliminate these pathogens. The first stage is the recognition between the fungus and the nematode. Fungi adhere to the body of nematodes through lecithin that binds to carbohydrate receptors located in the cuticle of the parasite [13, 14]. Adhesion is facilitated by fungal spores and protein fibrils that form nematode-trapping traps. The fibrils are arranged in a network or perpendicular to the external surface of the nematodes, after which they easily penetrate their body. The penetration step involves the release of hydrolytic enzymes and the application of progressive pressure on the parasite’s cuticle [15]. After complete penetration of the cuticle, the formation and multiplication of hyphae begin. Gradually the fungi digest the nematodes internally. Nutrients are captured in the hyphae in lipid droplets or are fixed and carried by lecithin [16]. The same steps are observed in the case of oomycetes. They adhere to the surface of parasite eggs or larvae, through hyphae, after which they penetrate the egg wall or larval cuticle, releasing various enzymes (various exoglycosidases, kinases, endo-β-1,3-glucanases, and cellulases). Gradually, they digest and destroy the internal contents through hyphae and zoospores that form continuously [17].

Another method of removing nematodes is using adhesive nets, hyphae, or knobs forming constricting rings together. Through the movements and body heat, the nematodes trigger the complete tightening of the rings around them and the exteriorization of a penetrating tube where the internal multiplication of the hyphae begins [18]. Certain fungi can spread to the surface of the body of nematodes or larvae, including the wall of nematode eggs. Gradually the sporulation takes place internally, having an ovicidal, larvicidal, or adulticidal effect [19, 20]. An ovicidal effect can be exerted by fungi also through hyphae, more precisely through oppressors, secondary metabolites, and the toxins they contain [19]. The same toxins can cause paralysis of adult nematodes [19].

The following subchapters contain information related to fungal species, but also oomycetes that can be used successfully in the elimination of various animal pathogens.

Advertisement

2. Elimination of vectors involved in the transmission of various diseases to animals

2.1 Amoebae

Amoebae are protozoa that can live freely in very different environments or can be parasitic, surviving in different hosts. Free amoebae are present in the external environment in soil, water, and air, but are also used in various medical fields, such as dialysis centers and dentistry [21]. Parasitic amoebae (Entamoeba spp. and Balantidium spp.) are found in animals’ intestines [22].

In veterinary medicine, only four classes of free amoebae have pathogenic potential: Acanthamoeba, Naegleria, Balamuthia, and Sappinia [23]. Each class determines certain clinical manifestations of amoebiasis. Acanthamoeba enters the animal body by respiration or skin and through the circulation reaches the central nervous system, causing amoebic granulomatous encephalitis (GAE) [21, 24, 25]. The evolution of the disease is slow, and long-lasting [26]. Certain species of the genus Balamuthia (Balamuthia mandrillaris) cause similar lesions, respectively: granulomatous Balamuthia encephalitis (BAE) [27]. The route of infection is predominantly cutaneous [28]. Sappiniae amoebic encephalitis (SAE) is caused by two species, Sappinia diploidea and Sappinia pedata [29]. From the Naegleria class, Naegleria fowleri is important. It is found in water and can be accidentally inhaled by animals while swimming [30]. The location is also in the brain, but the migration route is a nerve (olfactory nerve pathway) [18]. The characteristic lesion caused by this class of amoebas is meningoencephalitis, which develops with diffuse cerebral edema [30].

An important role in the circulation of certain pathogens has the amoebas of the Acanthamoeba class. Among the pathogens are bacteria (Listeria monocytogenes, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Rickettsia-like, Salmonella enterica, S. thyphimurium, Yersinia enterocolitica, Campylobacter jejuni, M. avium, M. bovis, Bacillus anthracis, Escherichia coli O157, Helicobacter pylori, Chlamydia pneumoniae, Coxiella burnetii, Francisella tularensis) [31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42], fungi (Cryptosporidium parvum, Cryptococcus neoformans) [43, 44, 45] and a limited number of viruses (Adenoviridae) [46].

Numerous researchers aim to use amoebophagous fungi in the elimination of vectors and in the prevention of many diseases that can be transmitted to animals. They can act as parasites or predators. Among the fungi with the role of parasites, which invade and multiply inside the amoebae, are found C. neoformans, Blastomyces dermatitidis, Sporothrix schenckii, Histoplasma capsulatum, Aspergillus spp., Penicillium spp. and Fusarium spp. [23, 43, 47, 48, 49, 50]. There are species of fungi that multiply in the nucleus (Nucleophaga sp.) [51] or others that multiply in the cytoplasm of amoebas (Sphaerita, Pseudosphaerita) [4]. Species such as Paramicrosporidium can cause degeneration and changes in the nuclear and plasma membranes of amoebae [52, 53]. Amoeba trophozoites can be parasitized by Cochlonema species [54, 55, 56, 57] or can be captured by hyphae of fungi, such as Stylopage [58] and Acaulopage [59, 60]. Mycotoxins produced by fungi also have a role in the degeneration and decomposition of trophozoite or cyst forms of amoebae [61]. Thus, ameobophagous fungi can be used in the elimination of pathogens carried by amoebae, by applying and cultivating them in soils and waters.

2.2 Insects

Globally, insects can be found in many habitats [62]. They have an important role in all terrestrial ecosystems, intervening in soil fertilization by circulating nutrients and seeds, but also in plant pollination. Thus, they are essential for maintaining optimal qualities in the development of agriculture [63]. Another role with a major impact on the quality of life of animals is the fact that insects are a nutritional basis for them [64]. The larval and adult stages are the most frequently consumed by animals.

In veterinary medicine, the role of insects is very important. Like amoebae, they can transmit various diseases from one animal to another. Diptera, insects, flies, and mosquitoes have a major impact on animal health. Culicoids can carry viruses such as BTV (bluetongue virus), AHSV (African horse sickness virus), EHDV (Epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus), and Akabane virus [65]. Newcastle disease [66], certain bacterial agents (E. coli, Salmonella, Shigella spp., S. aureus, Campylobacter) and parasites (E. vermicularis, S. stercoralis, T. canis, Trichomonas, Diphyllobothrium, Taenia, Dipylidium, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia) can be mechanically carried by flies, especially the domestic fly [67, 68, 69]. Mosquitoes, in turn, can carry many pathogens, such as West Nile virus, Rift Valley fever virus, Wesselsbron virus, Middelburg virus, Israel Turkey encephalitis virus, Usutu virus, Batai virus, Sindbis virus, Japanese encephalitis virus, St. Louis encephalitis virus, Eastern equine encephalitis virus, Western equine encephalitis virus, Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus, Tembusu virus, Wuchereria bancrofti, Plasmodium relictum (avian malaria), T. corvi (avian trypanosomiasis), Chandlerella quiscali (avian filarial worms), Dirofilaria repens and Dirofilaria immitis [70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79].

The use of pyrethroids as insecticides is the most widely used method of control. However, recent research aims to apply fungi, in various forms, as an ecological method of controlling insect populations [80]. Ansari et al. [81] used the conidia of several species of fungi against culicid adults. The species chosen were Metarhizium anisopliae V275, Isaria fumosorosea PFR 97, Isaria fumosorosea CLO 55, Beauveria bassiana BG and Lecanicillium longisporum. Conidia were applied in the form of dry conidia and wet conidia, the first variant being the most effective, causing the death of all individuals after 5 days. The most virulent strain of the fungus was Metarhizium anisopliae V275 [81]. The same fungus was effective against larval forms of culicids, houseflies, horn flies, and mosquitoes [82, 83, 84, 85, 86]. Other authors have reported a larvicidal potential of Culicinomyces clavisporus against culicids [87]. Fly larvae, mosquitoes, and culicids have also been eliminated by Beauveria bassiana, with many studies reporting this [83, 84, 85, 86]. This fungus has led to the death of culicid larvae of the species Culex tarsalis, Culex pipiens, Anopheles albimanus, Ochlerotatus sierrensis, Ochlerotatus nigromaculis, and Aedes aegypti [88]. Ong’wen et al. [89] tested the simultaneous action of dragonfly nymphs Pantala favescens and B. bassiana spores against Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes. They observed that the larvae exposed to the action of nymphs (predatory role) were much more vulnerable, in the adult stage, to the action of B. bassiana spores [89]. Ishii et al. [90] demonstrated the adulticidal action of B. bassiana conidia against An. stephensi mosquitoes. Seven days after exposure, the insect’s body was completely invaded by hyphae [90]. Oomycetes Lagenidium giganteum, Aphanomyces laevis, Couchia spp., Crypticola spp., Leptolegnia caudata and Pythium spp. can kill mosquito larvae through mycelium and oospores [91, 92].

2.3 Ticks

Ticks are parasitic mites, which require, for the complete development and completion of the biological cycle, a blood-feed on the vertebrates involved. The tick population is extremely numerous in the warm season, being an important agent for transmitting contagious diseases to animals, but also humans. They can carry bacteria (Borrelia, Ehrlichia, Anaplasma, Coxiella, Brucella, Francisella tulacobacteria, Rickettsia spp.) [93, 94, 95], piroplasmas (Babesia, Theileria), but also protozoa (Cytauxzoon, Hepatozoon) [76].

Biological control of ticks can be achieved by using entomopathogenic fungi. Currently, many fungi are known with a high potential to eliminate various evolutionary forms of ticks. Among them are: Beauveria bassiana, Beauveria brognardi, Metarhizium anisopliae, Metarhizium robertsii, Metarhizium brunneum, Fusarium sp., Aspergillus fumigatus, Aspergillus ochraceus, Aspergillus flavus, Aspergillus niger, Aspergillus parasiticus, Isaria fumosorosea, Scopulariopsis brevicaulis, Paecilomyces lilacinus, Paecilomyces farinosus, Paecilomyces fumosoroseus, Penicillium insectivorum, Conidiobolus coronatus, Trichothecium roseum, Verticillium aranearum, Verticillium lecanii, Isaria fumosorosea, Isaria farinose, Curvularia lunata, Rhizopus thailandensis, and Rhizopus arrhizus [96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114].

Depending on the evolutionary stage, the action of certain fungi is different. Eggs are the most sensitive and nymphs are the most resistant [115, 116]. A high ovicidal action against Boophilus microplus eggs were observed in Verticillium lecanii (strains LBV-2 and LBV-1) and lower in Beauveria bassiana [117]. A decrease in hatching capacity and indirectly the number of larvae formed have been reported by some authors regarding the action of I. fumosorosea [112]. The same effect was indicated for Isaria farinosa and Purpureocillium lilacinum [112]. Metarhizium anisopliae Ma-z4 has larvicidal action on the same species of ticks mentioned above [118]. In the case of adult females of B. microplus, the isolates E9 and AM of Metarhizium anisopliae, applied to the body of animals through spores in a concentration of 7.5 × 108 conidia/ml, determined high mortality and negatively influenced the number of eggs laid by females [119]. A pronounced acaricidal effect on adult females of Dermanyssus gallinae was noted in B. bassiana CD1123 conidia, applied at a concentration of 109/ml [120]. An ovicidal, larvicidal, and adulticidal effect against Argas reflexus ticks has been reported in V245, 685, and 715C of Metarhizium anisopliae, the first strain being the most pathogenic [121]. High mortality, observed starting one week after application, was also recorded in females of Rhipicephalus annulatus exposed to the action of Metarhizium anisopliae [122].

Varroa destructor mites are important in veterinary medicine as a consequence of the devastating effects induced in bee populations. Honey is an intense natural product used in various diseases in animals. It helps to heal wounds [123, 124], to treat gastric ulcers, and can be used as an adjunct in the treatment of diabetes, certain bacterial or parasitic infections, and in stopping the growth of tumors [125]. So, protecting bees is undoubtedly fundamental. The scientific research has brought favorable results regarding the use of the following fungi against V. destructor mites: Beauveria bassiana, Hirsutella spp., Metarhizium spp., Paecilomyces spp., Tolypocladium spp., Verticillium lecanii, Clonostachys rosea and Lecanicillium lecanii [126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133].

Advertisement

3. Environmental detoxification

Currently, our planet is going through continuous degradation due to the numerous pollutants accumulated in soils, waters, and air. Many of them are difficult to decompose. The current trend in research concerns the concept of bioremediation. It refers to the use of certain microbes in various habitats to metabolize various pollutants [134, 135]. Fungi have been intensively studied, their potential to cleanse the planet being recognized by many researchers. Detoxified soils are more fertile, ensuring rapid growth of plants, their nutritional qualities being better preserved. Indirectly, fungi provide animals with adequate food. The same is true of detoxifying water and air: it improves the quality of life of animals.

3.1 Heavy metals in the soil

Animals exposed for a long time to the action of heavy metals have developed developmental problems, spermatogenesis, neurological, renal, and liver problems [136]. Their carcinogenic potential has also been reported [137].

The action of fungi on heavy metals in the soil (Pb, Cd, Cu, Zn, Cr, Ni, Ag) is mediated by external temperature, but also by pH, the whole detoxification process being explained by the phenomena of bioabsorption, bioconcentration, and biotransformation [138]. Among the effective fungi are Beauveria bassiana, Aspergillus sp., Fusarium sp., Penicillium chrysogenum, Rhizopus sp., and Absidia [139, 140, 141, 142, 143].

3.2 Pesticides in wastewater

Wastewater is subject to filtration and treatment, as it can be an important source of pesticides, with harmful effects on the environment and animals. Currently, certain fungi capable of eliminating these pollutants have been identified. Hultberg and Bodin [144] used experimentally a combination of Chlorella vulgaris (algae) and Aspergillus niger and observed a significant reduction in the concentration of pesticides present in water. Piazides based on triazines, dicarboximides, and organophosphates can be successfully degraded by Verticillium sp. (H5) and Metacordyceps sp. (H12) [145].

Certain residual insecticides, such as endosulfan, can be deteriorated by Penicillium chrysogenum, Bacillus subtilis, Aspergillus terreus, Aspergillus flavus, Aspergillus niger, Fusarium ventricosum, and Cladosporium oxysporum [146, 147, 148]. Mohammed and Badawy [149] indicate the use of A. terreus YESM3 in the elimination of the insecticide imidacloprid.

3.3 Various pollutants from soil, water, and air

Xenobiotic compounds are chemicals that enter the animal body in numerous ways (digestive, respiratory, parenteral) and are various. Reproductive problems (infertility, abortion) have been reported in animals following exposure [150]. Many plant constituents, various pesticides, medicinal products, feed additives, or industrial chemicals, are considered xenobiotics [151]. They have been successfully degraded by species of white-rot fungi (Pleurotus spp., Agaricus bisporus, Bjerkandera adusta, Phanerochaete chrysosporium, Irpex lacteus, Lentinula edodes, Trametes versicolor) [152].

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are found in the form of aerosol particles and can enter the body through the respiratory tract. Prolonged exposure to these constituents has devastating effects on the body. They can adversely affect the endocrine, reproductive, immune, and nervous systems. It also has a carcinogenic and teratogenic action [153]. Polyporus sp. S133, Hypocrea, and Fusarium can decompose polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons [10]. Recent studies show that the Pythium aphanidermatum oomycete intensifies the action of Mycobacterium gilvum VM552 and Pseudomonas putida G7 against the pollutants mentioned [154].

Advertisement

4. Biocontrol of animal parasitosis

Parasites are pathogens that can survive in the body of animals for long periods, significantly affecting their quality of life. Depending on the class they belong to (Protozoa, Trematodes, Cestodes, Nematodes), they can be diagnosed in different age categories of the hosts [155]. There are many ways to infest animals, with a major impact on the digestive tract. In this way, the hosts can ingest from the external environment eggs or larvae of parasites. Adult forms usually survive in various animal organs. In stopping the evolutionary cycle of parasites, the veterinarian must take several preventive measures. These are undoubtedly necessary, due to the zoonotic potential of certain parasites. To eliminate and kill the adult forms, but also certain larval stages of the parasites, it is well known that various medicinal substances with the antiparasitic role are used. Of the four parasitic classes, nematodes are the most developed, and the main classes of drugs used against them are benzimidazoles, nicotinic receptor agonists, and macrocyclic lactones (avermectins, milbemycins) [156]. Cestodes are sensitive to isoquinolines (praziquantel) and trematodes to thiabendazole (benzimidazole) [157]. We mention only the helminths because they are pentiful in the animal population and the intermediate evolutionary forms resist the most in the external environment. One aspect that must be taken into account when administering the anthelmintics mentioned above is the one related to their use in farm animals. The possibility of eliminating them through milk (ruminants) must be known and indirectly, their remanence in certain secondary products must be mentioned. Macrocyclic lactones also have a long residue in the body of animals [158]. Analyzing this desideratum we can consider the elimination and the complete degradation of parasitic elements from the external environment as the main stage in stopping the biological cycle of parasites. This stage was a basis for current research in the field of biomedical sciences. Disinfectants have been tested and analyzed in numerous studies. Among those discovered so far as having a potential effect on the intermediate elements of nematodes, are those based on alcohols (ethanol, propanol), pentapotassium, and quaternary ammonium compounds [159, 160]. Alcohol-based disinfectants and more can have a corrosive effect if applied to different surfaces and instruments. Also, not enough details are known about the effect they can have on the skin of animals. Here we refer to those kept in paddocks or cages. Considering these aspects, the current research investigates the application of some fungi or oomycetes in the control of the evolutionary cycle of parasites, being an ecological and environmentally friendly method.

Ruminants are frequently parasitized with trichostrongyls. Of these, Haemonchus sp. is very important due to the severe anemias, but also to the elaborate clinical symptoms that it can give. Many studies have reported the nematicidal action of some Pleurotus species against larval forms (L1, L3, L4), but also of adult Haemonchus sp. [161]. This action is due to chemical compounds contained in hyphae (fatty acids, alkaloids, quinones, peptides, polyphenols, and terpenoids) [162]. Vieira et al. [163] associated two fungi (Pochonia chlamydosporia VC4 isolate and Arthrobotrys cladodes var. macroides CG719 isolate) against the larvae of Haemonchus sp. but also of Cooperia sp. and Oesophagostomum sp. The results were promising, the two fungi potentiating each other’s action [163]. Besides the larvicidal action, P. chlamydosporia also has an ovicidal action against some helminth eggs [164]. Other researchers have observed that A. cladodes used alone against the larvae of Haemonchus sp. resulted in high mortality, between 68.7% and 81.73% [165, 166, 167]. Silva et al. [168] do not recommend the associations between the following fungi, in combating the larval forms of Haemonchus sp.: Duddingtonia flagrans, Clonostachys rosea, Arthrobotrys musiformis, and Trichoderma esau. Other authors propose the use of the following fungi, frequently isolated from the external environment, in the control of gastrointestinal helminthiases of small ruminants: Arthrobotrys oligospora, Candelabrella musiformis, Arundo conoides, Andropogon dactyloides, Trichoderma, Beauveria, Clonostachys and Lecanicillium [169]. Cai et al. [170] investigated the action of two species of Arthrobotrys (Arthrobotrys musiformis and Arthrobotrys robusta) against the larval forms of trichostrongyls from sheep and goats. The percentages obtained were remarkable, between 97.71% and 99.98% [170]. Similar results regarding the larvicidal action of Arthrobotrys musiformis (90.4%) were reported by Silva et al. [171] and much lower percentages of 50% were obtained by Acevedo-Ramírez et al. [172]. The same authors observed a reduction in the number of Haemonchus sp. larvae, over 60% in the case of Trichoderma esau and Clonostachys rosea and 85.7% in the case of Duddingtonia flagrans [171]. A larval reduction of over 90% was identified by Chandrawathani et al. after administering in vivo to small ruminants D. flagrans at a dose of 1 × 106 spores/animal/day for 6 days [173].

Other researchers have investigated the action of fungi (Arthrobotrys sp. E1; A. cladodes CG719; A. conoides I40; A. musiformis A1, A2, A3; A. oligospora C1, C2; A. robusta B1, I31; Duddingtonia flagrans CG722, CG768; Monacrosporium appendiculatum CGI; Methanocorpusculum sinense SF53, SF139; M. thaumasium NF34A; Nematoctonus robustus D1) on infesting larvae of Strongyloides papillosus isolated from cattle. The results were satisfactory, causing a larval reduction between 65.4 and 100% [174]. D. flagrans can destroy Strongyloides larvae in 2 weeks, and V. chlamidosporium (PTCC 5179) in 3 weeks, as reported by Zarrin et al. [175]. The same authors indicate the use of F. solani (PTCC 5284) and T. harzianum (IBRC-M 30059) in the control of strongyloidiasis in domestic animals [175].

In horses, Araujo et al. [176] investigated the larvicidal action of 3 fungi (Duddingtonia flagrans AC001, Monacrosporium thaumasium NF34, Arthrobotrys robusta I-31) against Strongyloides westeri. The results showed a reduction in the larval population between 67.9% and 80.4% [176]. Also in horses, effective against the larvae of Strongylus equinus, it is Arthrobotrys oligospora [177]. P. chlamydosporia is a fungus used in numerous researches against several species of parasites, against which it has shown significant negative effects. Among the species of parasites that have proved sensitive to its action, are found: Ascaridia galli [178, 179], Heterakis gallinarum [178, 179], Oxyuris equi [180], Ascaris suum [181], and Toxocara canis [182].

A satisfactory larvicidal potential against the gastrointestinal nematode Ancylostoma caninum, found in canids, had the fungus Arthrobotrys oligospora [177] and the oomycete Pythium oligandrum [183]. The same oomycete has an ovicidal action against Toxocara canis and Toxocara cati eggs, found in dogs and cats [17]. Other authors recommend the use of Paecilomyces lilacinus, Trichoderma virens, and Fusarium pallidoroseum in the biocontrol of ascariasis in dogs [184, 185, 186].

Biocontrol in animal trematodes is still at the beginning of the research, until now the ovicidal effect of Paecilomyces lilacinus and P. variety against Fasciola gigantica [187], but also P. chlamydosporia against Fasciola hepatica eggs [188] are known.

Advertisement

5. Conclusions

Fungi and oomycetes are important agents in the control of animal diseases, which can seriously alter their health. Through the actions they present (insecticide, amoebicide, antiparasitic - ovicidal, larvicidal, nematicidal, and anti-pollution) according to those deduced from the scientific literature, they are key elements in ensuring the welfare of animals and improving their quality of life.

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

Advertisement

Notes/Thanks/Other declarations

Thanks go to Banat’s University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine “‘King Michael I of Romania”, for helping the author with the costs of publishing this book chapter.

References

  1. 1. Volk TJ. Fungi. In: Levin SA, editor. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity. Second ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Academic Press; 2013. pp. 624-640. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00062-9
  2. 2. Barr DJS. Evolution and kingdoms of organisms from the perspective of a mycologist. Mycologia. 1992;84:1-11
  3. 3. Phillips AJ, Anderson VL, Robertson EJ, Secombes CJ, van West P. New insights into animal pathogenic oomycetes. Trends in Microbiology. 2007;16:13-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.tim.2007.10.013
  4. 4. Sparrow FK. Aquatic Phycomycetes Exclusive of the Saprolegniaceae and Pythium. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press; 1943
  5. 5. Roberts DW. Toxins of entomopathogenic fungi. In: Burges HD, editor. Microbial Control of Pests and Plant Diseases. 1970-1980. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1981. pp. 441-464
  6. 6. Clark TB, Kellen WR, Fukuda T, Lindegren JE. Field and laboratory studies on the pathogenicity of the fungus Beauveria bassiana to three genera of mosquitoes. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 1968;11(1):1-7. DOI: 10.1016/0022-2011(68)90047-5
  7. 7. Beys da Silva WO, Santi L, Corrêa AP, Silva LA, Bresciani FR, Schrank A, et al. The entomopathogen Metarhizium anisopliae can modulate the secretion of lipolytic enzymes in response to different substrates including components of arthropod cuticle. Fungal Biology. 2010;114(11-12):911-916. DOI: 10.1016/j.funbio.2010.08.007
  8. 8. Ortiz-Urquiza A, Keyhani NO. Action on the surface: Entomopathogenic fungi versus the insect cuticle. Insects. 2013;4:357-374. DOI: 10.3390/insects4030357
  9. 9. Skinner M, Parker BL, Kim JS. Role of entomopathogenic fungi in integrated pest management. Journal of Integrated Pest Management. 2014;10:169-191. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-398529-3.00011-7
  10. 10. Deshmukh R, Khardenavis AA, Purohit HJ. Diverse metabolic capacities of Fungi for bioremediation. Indian Journal of Microbiology. 2016;56(3):247-264. DOI: 10.1007/s12088-016-0584-6
  11. 11. Minney SF, Quirk AV. Growth and adaptation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae at different cadmium concentrations. Microbios. 1985;42(167):37-44
  12. 12. Betancor L, Johnson GR, Luckarift HR. Stabilized laccases as heterogeneous bioelectrocatalysts. ChemCatChem. 2013;5(1):46-60
  13. 13. Ahman J, Ek B, Rask L, Tunlid A. Sequence analysis and regulation of a gene encoding a cuticle-degrading serine protease from the nematophagous fungus Arthrobotrys oligospora. Microbiology (Reading). 1996;142(7):1605-1616. DOI: 10.1099/13500872-142-7-1605
  14. 14. Bonants PJ, Fitters PF, Thijs H, den Belder E, Waalwijk C, Henfling JW. A basic serine protease from Paecilomyces lilacinus with biological activity against Meloidogyne hapla eggs. Microbiology (Reading). 1995;141(4):775-784. DOI: 10.1099/13500872-141-4-775
  15. 15. Ahman J, Johansson T, Olsson M, Punt PJ, van den Hondel CA, Tunlid A. Improving the pathogenicity of a nematode-trapping fungus by genetic engineering of a subtilisin with nematotoxic activity. Applied Environmental Microbiology. 2002;68(7):3408-3415. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.68.7.3408-3415.2002
  16. 16. Rosén S, Sjollema K, Veenhuis M, Tunlid A. A cytoplasmic lectin produced by the fungus Arthrobotrys oligospora functions as a storage protein during saprophytic and parasitic growth. Microbiology (Reading). 1997;143(8):2593-2604. DOI: 10.1099/00221287-143-8-2593
  17. 17. Luca I, Ilie MS, Florea T, Olariu-Jurca A, Stancu A, Dărăbuş G. The use of Pythium oligandrum in the biological control of roundworm infection in dogs and cats. Pathogens. 2022;11(3):367. DOI: 10.3390/pathogens11030367
  18. 18. Chen TH, Hsu CS, Tsai PJ, Ho YF, Lin NS. Heterotrimeric G-protein and signal transduction in the nematode-trapping fungus Arthrobotrys dactyloides. Planta. 2001;212(5-6):858-863. DOI: 10.1007/s004250000451
  19. 19. Nordbring-Hertz B, Jansson HB, Tunlid A. Nematophagous fungi. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2006. pp. 145-179
  20. 20. Zhang Y, Li GH, Zhang KQ. A review on the research of nematophagous fungal species. Mycosystema. 2011;30:836-884
  21. 21. Trabelsi H, Dendana F, Sellami A, Sellami H, Cheikhrouhou F, Neji S, et al. Pathogenic free-living amoebae: Epidemiology and clinical review. Pathologie Biologie (Paris). 2012;60(6):399-405. DOI: 10.1016/j.patbio.2012.03.002
  22. 22. Ravdin JI. Pathogenesis of disease caused by Entamoeba histolytica: Studies of adherence, secreted toxins, and contact-dependent cytolysis. Research and Reviews of Infectious Diseases. 1986;8(2):247-260. DOI: 10.1093/clinids/8.2.247
  23. 23. Balczun C, Scheid PL. Free-living amoebae as hosts for and vectors of intracellular microorganisms with public health significance. Viruses. 2017;9(4):65. DOI: 10.3390/v9040065
  24. 24. Qvarnstrom Y, Nerad TA, Visvesvara GS. Characterization of a new pathogenic Acanthamoeba species, A. byersi n. sp., isolated from a human with fatal amoebic encephalitis. The Journal of Eukaryotic Microbiology. 2013;60(6):626-633. DOI: 10.1111/jeu.12069
  25. 25. Walochnik J, Aspöck H. Die Diagnostik von Infektionen mit freilebenden Amöben (FLA). Laboratoriums Medizin. 2005;29:446-456
  26. 26. Butt CG. Primary amebic meningoencephalitis. The New England Journal of Medicine. 1966;274(26):1473-1476. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM196606302742605
  27. 27. Scheid P. Balamuthiose. In: Hofmann F, editor. Handbuch der Infektionskrankheiten. Hamburg, Germany: ecomed Verlag; 2012
  28. 28. Siddiqui R, Khan NA. Balamuthia amoebic encephalitis: An emerging disease with fatal consequences. Microbial Pathogenesis. 2008;44(2):89-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.micpath.2007.06.008
  29. 29. Qvarnstrom Y, da Silva AJ, Schuster FL, Gelman BB, Visvesvara GS. Molecular confirmation of Sappinia pedata as a causative agent of amoebic encephalitis. The Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2009;199(8):1139-1142. DOI: 10.1086/597473
  30. 30. Marciano-Cabral F, Cabral GA. The immune response to Naegleria fowleriamebae and pathogenesis of infection. FEMS Immunology and Medical Microbiology. 2007;51(2):243-259. DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-695X.2007.00332.x
  31. 31. Akya A, Pointon A, Thomas C. Mechanism involved in phagocytosis and killing of listeria monocytogenes by Acanthamoeba polyphaga. Parasitology Research. 2009;105(5):1375-1383. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-009-1565-z
  32. 32. Cirillo JD, Falkow S, Tompkins LS, Bermudez LE. Interaction of Mycobacterium avium with environmental amoebae enhances virulence. Infection and Immunity. 1997;65(9):3759-3767. DOI: 10.1128/iai.65.9.3759-3767.1997
  33. 33. Samba-Louaka A, Robino E, Cochard T, Branger M, Delafont V, Aucher W, et al. Environmental Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis hosted by free-living amoebae. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology. 2018;8:28. DOI: 10.3389/fcimb.2018.00028
  34. 34. Michel R. Freilebende Amöben als Wirte und Vehikel von Mikroorganismen. Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Tropenmedizin und Parasitologie. 1997;19:11-20
  35. 35. Fritsche TR, Sobek D, Gautom RK. Enhancement of in vitro cytopathogenicity by Acanthamoeba spp. following acquisition of bacterial endosymbionts. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 1998;166(2):231-236. DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1998.tb13895.x
  36. 36. Gaze WH, Burroughs N, Gallagher MP, Wellington EM. Interactions between Salmonella typhimurium and Acanthamoeba polyphaga, and observation of a new mode of intracellular growth within contractile vacuoles. Microbial Ecology. 2003;46(3):358-369. DOI: 10.1007/s00248-003-1001-3
  37. 37. Snelling WJ, McKenna JP, Lecky DM, Dooley JS. Survival of Campylobacter jejuni in waterborne protozoa. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2005;71(9):5560-5571. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.71.9.5560-5571.2005
  38. 38. Steinert M, Birkness K, White E, Fields B, Quinn F. Mycobacterium avium bacilli grow saprozoically in coculture with Acanthamoeba polyphaga and survive within cyst walls. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1998;64(6):2256-2261. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.64.6.2256-2261.1998
  39. 39. Dey R, Hoffman PS, Glomski IJ. Germination and amplification of anthrax spores by soil-dwelling amoebas. Applied and Environmental Microbiology Journal. 2012;78:8075-8081
  40. 40. Winiecka-Krusnell J, Wreiber K, von Euler A, Engstrand L, Linder E. Free-living amoebae promote growth and survival of helicobacter pylori. Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases. 2002;34(4):253-256. DOI: 10.1080/00365540110080052
  41. 41. La Scola B, Raoult D. Survival of Coxiella burnetii within free-living amoeba Acanthamoeba castellanii. Clinical Microbiology and Infection. 2001;7(2):75-79. DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-0691.2001.00193.x
  42. 42. Abd H, Johansson T, Golovliov I, Sandström G, Forsman M. Survival and growth of Francisella tularensis in Acanthamoeba castellanii. Applied and Environmental Microbiology Journal. 2003;69(1):600-606. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.69.1.600-606.2003
  43. 43. Steenbergen JN, Shuman HA, Casadevall A. Cryptococcus neoformansinteractions with amoebae suggest an explanation for its virulence and intracellular pathogenic strategy in macrophages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2001;98(26):15245-15250. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.261418798
  44. 44. Scheid PL, Schwarzenberger R. Free-living amoebae as vectors of cryptosporidia. Parasitology Research. 2011;109(2):499-504. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-011-2287-6
  45. 45. Ryan U, Zahedi A, Paparini A. Cryptosporidium in humans and animals-a one health approach to prophylaxis. Parasite Immunology. 2016;38(9):535-457. DOI: 10.1111/pim.12350
  46. 46. Lorenzo-Morales J, Coronado-Alvarez N, Martinez-Carretero E, Maciver SK, Valladares B. Detection of four adenovirus serotypes within water-isolated strains of Acanthamoeba in the Canary Islands, Spain. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2007;77:753-756
  47. 47. Van Waeyenberghe L, Baré J, Pasmans F, Claeys M, Bert W, Haesebrouck F, et al. Interaction of aspergillus fumigatus conidia with Acanthamoeba castellanii parallels macrophage-fungus interactions. Environmental Microbiology Reports. 2013;5(6):819-824. DOI: 10.1111/1758-2229.12082
  48. 48. Hillmann F, Novohradská S, Mattern DJ, Forberger T, Heinekamp T, Westermann M, et al. Virulence determinants of the human pathogenic fungus aspergillus fumigatus protect against soil amoeba predation. Environmental Microbiology. 2015;17(8):2858-2869. DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920
  49. 49. Nunes T, Brazil N, Fuentefria A, Rott M. Acanthamoeba and fusarium interactions: A possible problem in keratitis. Acta Tropica. 2016;157:102-107. DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2016.02.001
  50. 50. Bullock JD, Warwar RE. Contact lens solution-associated Acanthamoeba and fusarium keratitis. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2010;16(9):1501-1502. DOI: 10.3201/eid1609.091381
  51. 51. Sassuchin D. Hyperparasitism in Protozoa. The Quarterly Review of Biology. 1934;9(2):215-224. DOI: 10.1086/394461
  52. 52. Scheid P. Mechanism of intrusion of a microspordian-like organism into the nucleus of host amoebae (Vannella sp.) isolated from a keratitis patient. Parasitology Research. 2007;101:1097-1102. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-007-0590-z
  53. 53. Kurek R, Scheid P, Michel R. Darstellung von pilzartigen Endoparasiten bei freilebenden Amöben nach spezifischer Fluoreszenzanfärbung. Mikrokosmos. 2010;99:327-330
  54. 54. Drechsler C. Five new Zoopagaceae destructive to Rhizopods and nematodes. Mycologia. 1939;31(4):388-415. DOI: 10.1080/00275514.1939.12017354
  55. 55. Drechsler C. Three new Zoopagaceae subsisting on soil amoebae. Mycologia. 1946;38(2):120-143
  56. 56. Saikawa M, Sato H. Ultrastructure of Cochlonema odontosperma, an endoparasite in amoebae. Mycologia. 1991;83(4):403-408. DOI: 10.1080/00275514.1991.12026029
  57. 57. Koehsler M, Michel R, Lugauer J, Wylezisch C. Molecular identification and classification of Cochlonema euryblastum, a zoopagalean parasite of Thecamoeba quadrilineata. Mycologia. 2007;99:215-221. DOI: 10.1080/15572536.2007.11832580
  58. 58. Drechsler C. Some non-catenulate conidial phycomycetes preying on terriculous amoebae. Mycologia. 1935;27:176-205. DOI: 10.1080/00275514.1935.12017070
  59. 59. Michel R, Walochnik J, Scheid P. Isolation and characterisation of various amoebophagous fungi and evaluation of their spectrum. Experimental Parasitology. 2014;145:131-136. DOI: 10.1016/j.exppara.2014.10.005
  60. 60. Saikawa M, Kadowaki T. Sudies on Acaulopage dichotoma and A. tetraceros (Zoopagales, Zygomycota) capturing amoebae. Nova Hedwigia. 2002;74:365-371. DOI: 10.1127/0029-5035/2002/0074-0365
  61. 61. Michel R, Scheid P, Köhsler M, Walochnik J. Acaulopage tetraceros DRECHSLER 1935 (Zoopagales): Cultivation, prey pattern and molecular characterization. Endocytobiosis and Cell Research. 2015;26:76-82
  62. 62. Grimaldi D, Engel MS. Evolution of the Insects. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 755
  63. 63. Cock MJW, Biesmeijer JC, Cannon RJC, Gerard PJ, Gillespie D, Jiménez JJ, et al. The positive contribution of invertebrates to sustainable agriculture and food security. CAB Reviews. 2012;7:1-27
  64. 64. Carpenter GH. The Biology of Insects. London: Sidgwick and Jackson; 1928. p. 473
  65. 65. Mellor PS, Boorman J, Baylis M. Culicoides biting midges: Their role as arbovirus vectors. Annual Review of Entomology. 2000;45:307-340. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.307
  66. 66. Barin A, Arabkhazaeli F, Rahbari S, Madani SA. The housefly, Musca domestica, as a possible mechanical vector of Newcastle disease virus in the laboratory and field. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 2010;24(1):88-90. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2915.2009.00859.x
  67. 67. Goraichuk IV, Arefiev V, Stegniy BT, Gerilovych AP. Zoonotic and reverse zoonotic transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2. Virus Research. 2021;302:198473. DOI: 10.1016/j.virusres.2021.198473
  68. 68. Shane SM, Montrose MS, Harrington KS. Transmission of Campylobacter jejuni by the housefly (Musca domestica). Avian Diseases. 1985;29(2):384-391
  69. 69. Barreiro C, Albano H, Silva J, Teixeira P. Role of flies as vectors of foodborne pathogens in rural areas. International Scholarly Research Notices. 2013;2013:718780. DOI: 10.1155/2013/718780
  70. 70. Bamou R, Mayi MPA, Djiappi-Tchamen B, Nana-Ndjangwo SM, Nchoutpouen E, Cornel AJ, et al. An update on the mosquito fauna and mosquito-borne diseases distribution in Cameroon. Parasites Vectors. 2021;14:527. DOI: 10.1186/s13071-021-04950-9
  71. 71. Komarov A, Kalmar E. A hitherto undescribed disease–Turkey meningo-encephalitis. Veterinary Record. 1960;72:257-621
  72. 72. Rijks JM, Kik ML, Slaterus R, Foppen RPB, Stroo A, IJzer J, et al. Widespread Usutu virus outbreak in birds in the Netherlands, 2016. Euro Surveillance. 2016;21(45):30391. DOI: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2016.21.45.30391
  73. 73. Huhtamo E, Lambert AJ, Costantino S, Servino L, Krizmancic L, Boldorini R, et al. Isolation and full genomic characterization of Batai virus from mosquitoes, Italy 2009. Journal of General Virology. 2013;94(6):1242-1248. DOI: 10.1099/vir.0.051359-0
  74. 74. Eiden M, Ziegler U, Keller M, Müller K, Granzow H, Jöst H, et al. Isolation of sindbis virus from a hooded crow in Germany. Vector Borne Zoonotic Diseases. 2014;14(3):220-222. DOI: 10.1089/vbz.2013.1354
  75. 75. Genchi C, Kramer L. Subcutaneous dirofilariosis (Dirofilaria repens): An infection spreading throughout the old world. Parasitology & Vectors. 2017;10(2):517. DOI: 10.1186/s13071-017-2434-8
  76. 76. Lytra I, Emmanouel N. Study of Culex tritaeniorhynchus and species composition of mosquitoes in a rice field in Greece. Acta Tropica. 2014;134:66-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2014.02.018
  77. 77. Kopp A, Gillespie TR, Hobelsberger D, Estrada A, Harper JM, Miller RA, et al. Provenance and geographic spread of St. Louis encephalitis virus. MBio. 2013;4(3):e00322-13. DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00322-13
  78. 78. Folly AJ, Dorey-Robinson D, Hernández-Triana LM, Phipps LP, Johnson N. Emerging threats to animals in the United Kingdom by arthropod-borne diseases. Frontiers in Veterinary Science. 2020;7:20. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2020.00020
  79. 79. Kono Y, Tsukamoto K, Abd Hamid M, Darus A, Lian TC, Sam LS, et al. Encephalitis and retarded growth of chicks caused by Sitiawan virus, a new isolate belonging to the genus Flavivirus. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. 2000;63(1-2):94-101. DOI: 10.4269/ajtmh.2000.63.94
  80. 80. Papadopoulos E, Bartram D, Carpenter S, Mellor P, Wall R. Efficacy of alphacypermethrin applied to cattle and sheep against the biting midge Culicoides nubeculosus. Veterinary Parasitology. 2009;163(1-2):110-114. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.03.041
  81. 81. Ansari MA, Pope EC, Carpenter S, Scholte EJ, Butt TM. Entomopathogenic fungus as a biological control for an important vector of livestock disease: The Culicoides biting midge. PLoS One. 2011;6(1):e16108. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016108
  82. 82. Ansari MA, Carpenter S, Butt TM. Susceptibility of Culicoides biting midges larvae to the entomopathogenic fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae: Prospects for bluetongue vector control. Acta Tropica. 2010;113:1-6
  83. 83. Mishra S, Kumar P, Malik A, Satya S. Adulticidal and larvicidal activity of Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae against housefly, Musca domestica (Diptera: Muscidae), in laboratory and simulated field bioassays. Parasitology Research. 2011;108(6):1483-1492. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-010-2203-5
  84. 84. Sharififard M, Mossadegh MS, Vazirianzadeh B, Mahmoudabadi AZ. Laboratory evaluation of pathogenecity of entomopathogenic fungi Beauveria bassiana (Bals) and Metarhizium anisopliae (Metech) Sorok to larvae and adults of the housefly, Musca domestica L (Diptera: Muscidae). Asian Journal of Biological Sciences. 2011;4(2):128-137
  85. 85. Mwamburi LA, Laing MD, Miller RM. Laboratory screening of insecticidal activities of Beauveria bassiana and Paecilomyces lilacinus against larval and adult house fly (Musca domestica L.). African Entomology. 2010;18:38-46
  86. 86. Lohmeyer KH, Miller JA. Pathogenicity of three formulations of entomopathogenic fungi for control of adult Haematobia irritans (Diptera: Muscidae). Journal of Economic Entomology. 2006;99(6):1943-1947. DOI: 10.1603/0022-0493-99.6.1943
  87. 87. Unkles SE, Marriott C, Kinghorn JR, Panter C, Blackwell A. Efficacy of the entomopathogenic fungus, Culicinomyces clavisporus against larvae of the biting midges, Culicoides nubeculosus (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae). Biocontrol Science and Technology. 2004;14:397-401
  88. 88. Narladkar BW, Shivpuje PR, Harke PC. Fungal biological control agents for integrated management of Culicoides spp. (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) of livestock. Veterinary World. 2015;8(2):156-163. DOI: 10.14202/vetworld.2015.156-163
  89. 89. Ong’wen F, Onyango PO, Bukhari T. Direct and indirect effects of predation and parasitism on the Anopheles gambiae mosquito. Parasites Vectors. 2020;13:43. DOI: 10.1186/s13071-020-3915-8
  90. 90. Ishii M, Kanuka H, Badolo A, Sagnon NF, Guelbeogo WM, Koike M, et al. Proboscis infection route of Beauveria bassiana triggers early death of Anopheles mosquito. Scientific Reports. 2017;7:3476. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-03720-x
  91. 91. Kerwin JL. Oomycetes: Lagenidium giganteum. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association. 2007;23(2):50-57. DOI: 10.2987/8756-971X(2007)23[50,OLG]2.0.CO;2
  92. 92. Kaczmarek A, Boguś MI. Fungi of entomopathogenic potential in Chytridiomycota and Blastocladiomycota, and in fungal allies of the Oomycota and microsporidia. IMA Fungus. 2021;12:29. DOI: 10.1186/s43008-021-00074-y
  93. 93. Wang Q, Zhao S, Wureli H, Xie S, Chen C, Wei Q, et al. Brucella melitensis and B. abortus in eggs, larvae and engorged females of Dermacentor marginatus. Ticks and Tick Borne Diseases. 2018;9(4):1045-1048. DOI: 10.1016/j.ttbdis.2018.03.021
  94. 94. Li S, Wang Y, Qv G, Sun C, Yang L, Lin C, et al. Epidemiological investigation of Francisella tularensis transmitted by rabbits and ticks in some provinces of China. China Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Medicine. 2020;47:4069-4075
  95. 95. Fang LQ, Liu K, Li XL, Liang S, Yang Y, Yao HW, et al. Emerging tick-borne infections in mainland China: An increasing public health threat. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2015;15(12):1467-1479. DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00177-2
  96. 96. Cradock KR, Needham GR. Beauveria bassiana (Ascomycota: Hypocreales) as a management agent for free-living Amblyomma americanum (Acari: Ixodidae) in Ohio. Experimental and Applied Acarology. 2011;53(1):57-62. DOI: 10.1007/s10493-010-9381-9
  97. 97. Garcia MV, Rodrigues VDS, Monteiro AC, Simi LD, Higa LDOS, Martins MM, et al. In vitro efficacy of Metarhizium anisopliae sensu lato against unfed Amblyomma parvum (Acari: Ixodidae). Experimental and Applied Acarology. 2018;76:507-512
  98. 98. Kaaya GP, Mwangi EN, Ouna EA. Prospects for biological control of livestock ticks, Rhipicephalus appendiculatus and Amblyomma variegatum, using the entomogenous fungi Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 1996;67(1):15-20. DOI: 10.1006/jipa.1996.0003
  99. 99. Sullivan CF, Parker BL, Davari A, Lee MR, Kim JS, Skinner M. Evaluation of spray applications of Metarhizium anisopliae, Metarhizium brunneum and Beauveria bassiana against larval winter ticks, Dermacentor albipictus. Experimental and Applied Acarology. 2020;82(4):559-570. DOI: 10.1007/s10493-020-00547-6
  100. 100. Maranga RO, Kaaya GP, Mueke JM, Hassanali A. Effects of combining the fungi Beauveria bassiana and Metarhiziumanisopliae on the mortality of the tick Amblyomma variegatum (ixodidae) in relation to seasonal changes. Mycopathologia. 2005;159:527-532
  101. 101. Frazzon AP, da Silva Vaz Junior I, Masuda A, Schrank A, Vainstein MH. In vitro assessment of Metarhizium anisopliae isolates to control the cattle tick Boophilus microplus. Veterinary Parasitology. 2000;94(1-2):117-125. DOI: 10.1016/s0304-4017(00)00368-x
  102. 102. Szczepańska A, Kiewra D, Plewa-Tutaj K, Dyczko D, Guz-Regner K. Sensitivity of Ixodes ricinus (L., 1758) and Dermacentor reticulatus (Fabr., 1794) ticks to entomopathogenic fungi isolates: Preliminary study. Parasitology Research. 2020;119(11):3857-3861. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-020-06805-1
  103. 103. Samsináková A, Kálalová S, Daniel M, Dusbábek F, Honzáková E, Cerný V. Entomogenous fungi associated with the tick Ixodes ricinus (L.). Folia Parasitologica (Praha). 1974;21(1):39-48
  104. 104. Kirkland BH, Westwood GS, Keyhani NO. Pathogenicity of entomopathogenic fungi Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae to Ixodidae tick species Dermacentor variabilis, Rhipicephalus sanguineus, and Ixodes scapularis. Journal of Medical Entomology. 2004;41(4):705-711. DOI: 10.1603/0022-2585-41.4.705
  105. 105. Yoder JA, Rodell BM, Klever LA, Dobrotka CJ, Pekins PJ. Vertical transmission of the entomopathogenic soil fungus Scopulariopsis brevicaulis as a contaminant of eggs in the winter tick, Dermacentor albipictus, collected from calf moose (New Hampshire, USA). Mycology. 2019;10(3):174-181. DOI: 10.1080/21501203.2019.1600062
  106. 106. Zhendong H, Guangfu Y, Zhong Z, Ruiling Z. Phylogenetic relationships and effectiveness of four Beauveria bassiana sensu lato strains for control of Haemaphysalis longicornis (Acari: Ixodidae). Experimental and Applied Acarology. 2019;77(1):83-92. DOI: 10.1007/s10493-018-0329-9
  107. 107. Ren Q, Chen Z, Luo J, Liu G, Guan G, Liu Z, et al. Laboratory evaluation of Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae in the control of Haemaphysalis qinghaiensis in China. Experimental and Applied Acarology. 2016;69(2):233-238. DOI: 10.1007/s10493-016-0033-6
  108. 108. Lipa JJ. Microbial control of mites and ticks. In: Burges HD, Hussey NW, editors. Microbial Control of Insects and Mites. London, UK: Academic Press; 1971. pp. 357-373
  109. 109. Kaay GP, Hassan S. Entomogenous fungi as promising biopesticides for tick control. Experimental and Applied Acarology. 2000;24(12):913-926. DOI: 10.1023/a:1010722914299
  110. 110. Campos RA, Boldo JT, Pimentel IC, Dalfovo V, Araújo WL, Azevedo JL, et al. Endophytic and entomopathogenic strains of Beauveria sp to control the bovine tick Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) microplus. Genetics and Molecular Research. 2010;9(3):1421-1430. DOI: 10.4238/vol9-3gmr884
  111. 111. Fernández-Salas A, Alonso-Díaz MA, Alonso-Morales RA, Lezama-Gutiérrez R, Rodríguez-Rodríguez JC, Cervantes-Chávez JA. Acaricidal activity of Metarhizium anisopliae isolated from paddocks in the Mexican tropics against two populations of the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus. Medical and Veterinary Entomology. 2017;31(1):36-43. DOI: 10.1111/mve.12203
  112. 112. Angelo IC, Fernandes ÉK, Bahiense TC, Perinotto WM, Golo PS, Moraes AP, et al. Virulence of Isaria sp. and Purpureocillium lilacinum to Rhipicephalus microplus tick under laboratory conditions. Parasitology Research. 2012;111(4):1473-1480. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-012-2982-y
  113. 113. Casasolas-Oliver A, Estrada-Pena A, Gonzalez-Cabo J. Activity of Rhizopus thailandensis, Rhizopus arrhizus and Curvularia lunata on reproductive efficacy of Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Ixodidae). In: Dusbadek E, Bukva V, editors. Modern Acaralogy. Prague, Czech Republic: Academia Prague and SPB Academic Publishing BV; 1991. pp. 633-637
  114. 114. Samish M, Gindin G, Alekseev E, Glazer I. Pathogenicity of entomopathogenic fungi to different developmental stages of Rhipicephalus sanguineus (Acari: Ixodidae). The Journal of Parasitology. 2001;87(6):1355-1359. DOI: 10.1645/0022-3395(2001)087[1355,POEFTD]2.0.CO;2 PMID: 11780821
  115. 115. Fernandes ÉK, Bittencourt VR, Roberts DW. Perspectives on the potential of entomopathogenic fungi in biological control of ticks. Experimental Parasitology. 2012;130(3):300-305. DOI: 10.1016/j.exppara.2011.11.004
  116. 116. Aboelhadid SM, Ibrahium SM, Arafa WM, Maahrous LN, Abdel-Baki AAS, Wahba AA. In vitro efficacy of Verticillium lecanii and Beauveria bassiana of commercial source against cattle tick, Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) annulatus. Advances in Animal and Veterinary Sciences. 2018;6(3):139-147
  117. 117. Abdigoudarzi M, Esmaeilnia K, Shariat N. Laboratory study on biological control of ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) by Entomopathogenic indigenous Fungi (Beauveria bassiana). Iranian Journal of Arthropod-Borne Diseases. 2009;3(2):36-43
  118. 118. da Costa GL, Sarquis MI, de Moraes AM, Bittencourt VR. Isolation of Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae var. anisopliae from Boophilus microplus tick (Canestrini, 1887), in Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil. Mycopathologia. 2002;154(4):207-209. DOI: 10.1023/a:1016388618842
  119. 119. do Carmo Barcelos Correia A, Fiorin AC, Monteiro AC, Veríssimo CJ. Effects of Metarhizium anisopliae on the tick Boophilus microplus (Acari: Ixodidae) in stabled cattle. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 1998;71(2):189-191. DOI: 10.1006/jipa.1997.4719 PMID: 9500942
  120. 120. Immediato D, Camarda A, Iatta R, Puttilli MR, Ramos RA, Di Paola G, et al. Laboratory evaluation of a native strain of Beauveria bassiana for controlling Dermanyssus gallinae (De Geer, 1778) (Acari: Dermanyssidae). Veterinary Parasitology. 2015;212(3-4):478-482. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2015.07.004
  121. 121. Tavassoli M, Pourseyed SH, Ownagh A, Bernousi I, Mardani K. Biocontrol of pigeon tick Argas reflexus (Acari: Argasidae) by entomopathogenic fungus Metarhizium anisopliae (Ascomycota: Hypocreales). Brazilian Journal of Microbiology. 2011;42(4):1445-1452. DOI: 10.1590/S1517-838220110004000030
  122. 122. Pirali-Kheirabadi K, Haddadzadeh H, Razzaghi-Abyaneh M, Bokaie S, Zare R, Ghazavi M, et al. Biological control of Rhipicephalus (Boophilus) annulatus by different strains of Metarhizium anisopliae, Beauveria bassiana and Lecanicillium psalliotae fungi. Parasitology Research. 2007;100(6):1297-1302. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-006-0410-x
  123. 123. Molan PC. Potential of honey in the treatment of wounds and burns. American Journal of Clinical Dermatology. 2001;2:13-19. DOI: 10.2165/00128071-200102010-00003
  124. 124. Ahmed S, Othman NH. Honey as a potential natural anticancer agent: A review of its mechanisms. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2013;2013:829070. DOI: 10.1155/2013/829070
  125. 125. Vogt NA, Vriezen E, Nwosu A, Sargeant JM. A scoping review of the evidence for the medicinal use of natural honey in animals. Frontiers in Veterinary Sciences. 2021;7:618301. DOI: 10.3389/fvets.2020.618301
  126. 126. Shaw KE, Davidson G, Clark SJ, Bal BV, Pell JK, Chandler D, et al. Laboratory bioassays to assess the pathogenicity of mitosporic fungi to Varroa destructor (Acari: Mesostigmata), an ectoparasitic mite of the honeybee, Apis mellifera. Biological Control. 2002;24:266-276
  127. 127. Kanga LH, James RR, Boucias DG. Hirsutella thompsonii and Metarhizium anisopliae as potential microbial control agents of Varroa destructor, a honey bee parasite. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2002;81(3):175-184. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-2011(02)00177-5
  128. 128. Steenberg T, Kryger P, Holst N. A scientific note on the fungus Beauveria bassiana infecting Varroa destructor in worker brood cells in honey bee hives. Apidologie. 2010;41:127-128. DOI: 10.1051/apido/2009057
  129. 129. Peng CY, Zhou X, Kaya HK. Virulence and site of infection of the fungus, Hirsutella thompsonii, to the honey bee ectoparasitic mite, Varroa destructor. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2002;81(3):185-195. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-2011(02)00188-x
  130. 130. García-Fernández P, Santiago-Álvarez C, Quesada-Moraga E. Pathogenicity and thermal biology of mitosporic fungi as potential microbial control agents of Varroa destructor (Acari: Mesostigmata), an ectoparasitic mite of honey bee, Apis mellifera (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Apidologie. 2008;39:662-673. DOI: 10.1051/apido:2008049
  131. 131. Hamiduzzaman MM, Sinia A, Guzman-Novoa E, Goodwin PH. Entomopathogenic fungi as potential biocontrol agents of the ecto-parasitic mite, Varroa destructor, and their effect on the immune response of honey bees (Apis mellifera L.). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2012;111(3):237-243. DOI: 10.1016/j.jip.2012.09.001
  132. 132. Ahmed AA, Abd-Elhady HK. Efficacy of two fungus-based biopesticide against the honeybee ectoparasitic mite, Varroa destructor. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 2013;16(16):819-825. DOI: 10.3923/pjbs.2013.819.825
  133. 133. Voigt K, Rademacher E. Effect of the Propolis components, Cinnamic acid and pinocembrin, on Apis Mellifera and Ascosphaera Apis. Journal of Apicultural Science. 2015;59(1):89-95. DOI: 10.1515/jas-2015-0010
  134. 134. Gillespie IMM, Philip JC. Bioremediation, an environmental remediation technology for the bioeconomy. Trends in Biotechnology. 2013;31:329-332. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.01.015
  135. 135. Mishra A, Malik A. Novel fungal consortium for bioremediation of metals and dyes from mixed waste stream. Bioresource Technology. 2014;171:217-226. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2014. 08.047
  136. 136. Chałabis-Mazurek A, Valverde Piedra JL, Muszyński S, Tomaszewska E, Szymańczyk S, Kowalik S, et al. The concentration of selected heavy metals in muscles, liver and kidneys of pigs fed standard diets and diets containing 60% of new Rye varieties. Animals. 2021;11(5):1377. DOI: 10.3390/ani11051377
  137. 137. Hejna M, Gottardo D, Baldi A, Dell'Orto V, Cheli F, Zaninelli M, et al. Review: Nutritional ecology of heavy metals. Animal. 2018;12(10):2156-2170. DOI: 10.1017/S175173111700355X
  138. 138. Liu SH, Zeng GM, Niu QY, Liu Y, Zhou L, Jiang LH, et al. Bioremediation mechanisms of combined pollution of PAHs and heavy metals by bacteria and fungi: A mini review. Bioresource Technology. 2017;224:25-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.11.095
  139. 139. Gola D, Dey P, Bhattacharya A, Mishra A, Malik A, Namburath M. Shaikh Ziauddin Ahammad. Multiple heavy metal removal using an entomopathogenic fungi Beauveria bassiana. Bioresource Technology. 2016;218:388-396. DOI: 10.1016/j.biortech.2016.06.096
  140. 140. Iram S, Zaman A, Iqbal Z, Shabbir R. Heavy metal tolerance of fungus isolated from the soil contaminated with sewage and industrial waste- water. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies. 2013;22:691-697
  141. 141. Volesky B. Advances in biosorption of metals: Selection of biomass types. FEMS Microbiology Reviews. 1994;14(4):291-302. DOI: 10.1111/j.1574-6976.1994.tb00102.x
  142. 142. Maheswari S, Murugesan AG. Removal of arsenic (III) ions from aqueous solution using aspergillus favus isolated from arsenic contaminated site. Indian Journal of Chemical Technology. 2011;18:45-52
  143. 143. Park D, Yun YS, Park JM. Use of dead fungal biomass for the detoxifcation of hexavalent chromium: Screening and kinetics. Process Biochemistry. 2015;40:2559-2565. DOI: 10.1016/j.procbio.2004.12.002
  144. 144. Hultberg M, Bodin H. Effects of fungal-assisted algal harvesting through biopellet formation on pesticides in water. Biodegradation. 2018;29:557-565. DOI: 10.1007/s10532-018-9852-y
  145. 145. Levio-Raiman M, Briceño G, Leiva B, López S, Schalchli H, Lamilla C, et al. Treatment of pesticide-contaminated water using a selected fungal consortium: Study in a batch and packed-bed bioreactor. Agronomy. 2021;11(4):743. DOI: 10.3390/agronomy11040743
  146. 146. Ahmad KS. Remedial potential of bacterial and fungal strains (Bacillus subtilis, aspergillus Niger, aspergillus flavus and Penicillium chrysogenum) against organochlorine insecticide Endosulfan. Folia Microbiologica (Praha). 2020;65(5):801-810. DOI: 10.1007/s12223-020-00792-7
  147. 147. Supreeth M, Raju NS. Biotransformation of chlorpyrifos and endosulfan by bacteria and fungi. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2017;101(15):5961-5971. DOI: 10.1007/s00253-017-8401-7
  148. 148. Siddique T, Okeke BC, Arshad M, Frankenberger WT Jr. Biodegradation kinetics of endosulfan by fusarium ventricosum and a Pandoraea species. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2003;51(27):8015-8019. DOI: 10.1021/jf030503z
  149. 149. Mohammed YMM, Badawy MEI. Biodegradation of imidacloprid in liquid media by an isolated wastewater fungus aspergillus terreus YESM3. Journal of Environmental Science and Health. 2017;52(10):752-761. DOI: 10.1080/03601234.2017
  150. 150. Panter KE, Stegelmeier BL. Effects of xenobiotics and phytotoxins on reproduction in food animals. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice. 2011;27(2):429-446. DOI: 10.1016/j.cvfa.2011.02.010
  151. 151. Idle JR, Gonzalez FJ. Metabolomics. Cell Metabolism. 2007;6(5):348-351. DOI: 10.1016/j.cmet.2007.10.005
  152. 152. Adenipekun CO, Lawal R. Uses of mushrooms in bioremediation: A review. Biotechnology and Molecular Biology Review. 2012;7(3):62-68
  153. 153. Sun K, Song Y, He F, Jing M, Tang J, Liu R. A review of human and animals exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons: Health risk and adverse effects, photo-induced toxicity and regulating effect of microplastics. Science of the Total Environment. 2021;773:145403. DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.145403
  154. 154. Sungthong R, van West P, Heyman F, Funck Jensen D, Ortega-Calvo JJ. Mobilization of pollutant-degrading Bacteria by eukaryotic zoospores. Environmental Science & Technology. 2016;50(14):7633-7640. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00994
  155. 155. Dhaliwal BBS, Juyal PD. Parasitic Zoonoses. New Delhi: Springer; 2013. pp. 1-14. DOI: 10.1007/978-81-322-1551-6_1
  156. 156. Romero-Gonzalez R, Garrido Frenich A, Martınez Vida JL. Anthelmintics. In: Motarjemi Y, Moy G, Todd E, editors. Encyclopedia of Food Safety. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Academic Press; 2013. pp. 45-54
  157. 157. Chai JY. Praziquantel treatment in trematode and cestode infections: An update. Infection & Chemotherapy. 2013;45(1):32-43. DOI: 10.3947/ic.2013.45.1.32
  158. 158. Moreno L, Lanusse C. Chapter 24 - specific veterinary drug residues of concern in meat production. In: Purslow PP, editor. Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, New Aspects of Meat Quality. Sawston, Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Series; 2017. pp. 605-627. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-100593-4.00025-4
  159. 159. Luca I, Oprescu I, Morariu S, Mederle N, Ilie MS, Dărăbuș G. Effects of some disinfectants on Toxocara spp. eggs viability of dogs and cats. Turkish Journal of Veterinary & Animal Sciences. 2020;44(3):734-739. DOI: 10.3906/vet-1905-92
  160. 160. Luca I, Iancu TG, Oprescu I, Dărăbuș G. The in vitro effect of 1% pentapotassium solution on Toxocara canis eggs. Scientia Parasitologica. 2018;19(1-2):66-69
  161. 161. Cuevas-Padilla EJ, Aguilar-Marcelino L, Sánchez JE, González-Cortázar M, Zamilpa-Álvarez A, Huicochea-Medina M, et al. A Pleurotus spp. hydroalcoholic fraction possess a potent in vitro ovicidal activity against the sheep parasitic nematode Haemonchus contortus. In: Sánchez JE, Mata G, Royse DJ, editors. Updates on Tropical Mushrooms. Basic and Applied Research. 1st. ed. San Cristóbal de las Casas, Mexico: El Colegio de la Frontera Sur, San Cristóbal de Las Casas; 2018. pp. 193-211
  162. 162. Li S, Shah NP. Antioxidant and antibacterial activities of sulphated polysaccharides from Pleurotus eryngii and Streptococcus thermophilus ASCC 1275. Food Chemistry. 2014;165:262-270. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.05.110
  163. 163. Vieira ÍS, Oliveira IC, Campos AK, Araújo JV. Association and predatory capacity of fungi Pochonia chlamydosporia and Arthrobotrys cladodes in the biological control of parasitic helminths of bovines. Parasitology. 2019;146(10):1347-1351. DOI: 10.1017/S003118201900060X
  164. 164. Araújo JV, Braga FR, Silva AR, Araujo JM, Tavela AO. In vitro evaluation of the effect of the nematophagous fungi Duddingtonia flagrans, Monacrosporium sinense, and Pochonia chlamydosporia on Ascaris suum eggs. Parasitology Research. 2008;102(4):787-790. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-007-0852-9
  165. 165. Ranjbar-Bahadori S, Rhazzagi-Abyaneh M, Baya M, Eslami A, Pirali K, Shams-Ghahfarokhi M, et al. Studies on the effect of temperature, incubation time and in vivo gut passage on survival and Nematophagous activity Arthrobotrys oligospora var. oligospora and A. cladodes var. macroides. Global Veterinaria. 2010;4:112-117
  166. 166. Braga FR, Araújo JV, Tavela Ade O, Vilela VL, Soares FE, Araujo JM, et al. First report of interaction of nematophagous fungi on Libyostrongylus douglassii (Nematoda: Trichostrongylidae). Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinaria. 2013;22(1):147-151. DOI: 10.1590/s1984-29612013000100027
  167. 167. de Castro OI, de Carvalho LM, Vieira ÍS, Campos AK, Freitas SG, de Araujo JM, et al. Using the fungus Arthrobotrys cladodes var. macroides as a sustainable strategy to reduce numbers of infective larvae of bovine gastrointestinal parasitic nematodes. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology. 2018;158:46-51. DOI: 10.1016/j.jip.2018.09.004
  168. 168. Silva ME, Braga FR, de Gives PM, Millán-Orozco J, Uriostegui MA, Marcelino LA, et al. Fungal antagonism assessment of predatory species and producers metabolites and their effectiveness on Haemonchus contortus infective larvae. Biomed Research International. 2015;2015:241582. DOI: 10.1155/2015/241582
  169. 169. Soto-Barrientos N, de Oliveira J, Vega-Obando R, Montero-Caballero D, Vargas B, Hernández-Gamboa J, et al. In-vitro predatory activity of nematophagous fungi from Costa Rica with potential use for controlling sheep and goat parasitic nematodes. Revista de Biologia Tropical. 2011;59(1):37-52. DOI: 10.15517/rbt.v59i1.3177
  170. 170. Cai KZ, Wang BB, Xu Q, Liu JL, Wang KY, Xue YJ, et al. In vitro and in vivo studies of nematophagous fungi Arthrobotrys musiformis and Arthrobotrys robusta against the larvae of the trichostrongylides. Acta Parasitologica. 2017;62(3):666-674. DOI: 10.1515/ap-2017-0080
  171. 171. Silva ME, Uriostegui MA, Millán-Orozco J, Gives PM, Hernández EL, Braga FR, et al. Predatory activity of Butlerius nematodes and nematophagous fungi against Haemonchus contortus infective larvae. Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinaria. 2017;26(1):92-95. DOI: 10.1590/S1984-29612016091
  172. 172. Acevedo-Ramírez PMC, Quiroz-Romero H, Valero-Coss RO, Mendozade-Gives P, Gómez JL. Nematophagous fungi from Mexico with activity against the sheep nematode Haemonchus contortus. Revista Ibero-Latinoamericana de Parasitologia. 2011;70(1):101-108
  173. 173. Chandrawathani P, Jamnah O, Waller PJ, Höglund J, Larsen M, Zahari WM. Nematophagous fungi as a biological control agent for nematode parasites of small ruminants in Malaysia: A special emphasis on Duddingtonia flagrans. Veterinary Research. 2002;33(6):685-696. DOI: 10.1051/vetres:2002049
  174. 174. Kanadani Campos A, Caixeta Valadão M, de Carvalho LM, de Araújo JV, Pezzi GM. In vitro nematophagous activity of predatory fungi on infective larvae of Strongyloides papillosus. Acta Veterinaria Brasilica. 2017;11(4):213-218. DOI: 10.21708/avb.2017.11.4.7261
  175. 175. Zarrin M, Rahdar M, Poormohamadi F, Rezaei-Matehkolaei A. In vitro Nematophagous activity of predatory Fungi on infective nematodes larval stage of Strongyloidae family. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2017;5(3):281-284. DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2017.064
  176. 176. Araujo JM, Araújo JV, Braga FR, Carvalho RO. In vitro predatory activity of nematophagous fungi and after passing through gastrointestinal tract of equine on infective larvae of Strongyloides westeri. Parasitology Research. 2010;107(1):103-108. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-010-1841-y
  177. 177. Zhong W, Chen Y, Gong S, Qiao J, Meng Q, Zhang X, et al. Enzymological properties and nematode-degrading activity of recombinant chitinase AO-379 of Arthrobotrys oligospora. Kafkas Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi. 2019;25:435-444
  178. 178. Lozano J, Almeida C, Oliveira M, Paz-Silva A, Madeira de Carvalho L. Biocontrol of avian gastrointestinal parasites using predatory Fungi: Current status, challenges, and opportunities. Parasitologia. 2022;2(1):37-44. DOI: 10.3390/parasitologia2010004
  179. 179. Thapa S, Thamsborg SM, Wang R, Meyling NV, Dalgaard TS, Petersen HH, et al. Effect of the nematophagous fungus Pochonia chlamydosporia on soil content of ascarid eggs and infection levels in exposed hens. Parasites & Vectors. 2018;11:319. DOI: 10.1186/s13071-018-2898-1
  180. 180. Braga FR, Araújo JV, Silva AR, Carvalho RO, Araujo JM, Ferreira SR, et al. Viability of the nematophagous fungus Pochonia chlamydosporia after passage through the gastrointestinal tract of horses. Veterinary Parasitology. 2010;168(3-4):264-268. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.11.020
  181. 181. Ferreira SR, de Araújo JV, Braga FR, Araujo JM, Frassy LN, Ferreira AS. Biological control of Ascaris suum eggs by Pochonia chlamydosporia fungus. Veterinary Research Communications. 2011;35(8):553-558. DOI: 10.1007/s11259-011-9494-6
  182. 182. Araujo JM, Araújo JV, Braga FR, Ferreira SR, Tavela AO. Predatory activity of chlamydospores of the fungus Pochonia chlamydosporia on Toxocara canis eggs under laboratory conditions. Revista Brasileira de Parasitologia Veterinaria. 2013;22(1):171-174. DOI: 10.1590/s1984-29612013000100033
  183. 183. Luca I, Imre M, Ilie MS, Oprescu I, Dărăbuş G. The biological potential of a product containing Pythium oligandrum against Uncinaria stenocephala (Railliet, 1884) larvae. Journal of the Hellenic Veterinary Medical Society. 2022;73(1):3651-3656. DOI: 10.12681/jhvms.25380
  184. 184. de Souza Maia Filho F, da Silva Fonseca AO, Persici BM, de Souza SJ, Braga CQ, Pötter L, et al. Trichoderma virens as a biocontrol of Toxocara canis: In vivo evaluation. Revista Iberoamericana de Micologia. 2017;34(1):32-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.riam.2016.06.004
  185. 185. Carvalho RO, Araújo JV, Braga FR, Araujo JM, Alves CD. Ovicidal activity of Pochonia chlamydosporia and Paecilomyces lilacinus on Toxocara canis eggs. Veterinary Parasitology. 2010;169(1-2):123-127. DOI: 10.1016/j.vetpar.2009.12.037
  186. 186. Ciarmela ML, Minvielle MC, Lori G, Basualdo JA. Biological interaction between soil fungi and Toxocara canis eggs. Veterinary Parasitology. 2002;103(3):251-257. DOI: 10.1016/s0304-4017(01)00598-2
  187. 187. Manzanilla-López RH, Esteves I, Finetti-Sialer MM, Hirsch PR, Ward E, Devonshire J, et al. Pochonia chlamydosporia: Advances and challenges to improve its performance as a biological control agent of sedentary Endo-parasitic nematodes. Journal of Nematology. 2013;45(1):1-7
  188. 188. Dias AS, Araújo JV, Braga FR, Araujo JM, Puppin AC, Fernandes FM, et al. Biological control of Fasciola hepatica eggs with the Pochonia chlamydosporia fungus after passing through the cattle gastrointestinal tract. Parasitology Research. 2012;110(2):663-667. DOI: 10.1007/s00436-011-2538-6

Written By

Iasmina Luca

Submitted: 01 July 2022 Reviewed: 12 July 2022 Published: 17 August 2022