Back

Development of quantitative high-throughput screening methods for identification of antifungal biocontrol strains

Kjeldgaard, B.; Neves, A. R.; Fonseca, C.; Kovacs, A. T.; Dominguez-Cuevas, P.

2021-06-25 microbiology
10.1101/2021.06.23.449687 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Large screens of bacterial strain collections to identify potential biocontrol agents are often time consuming, costly, and fail to provide quantitative results. In this study, we present two quantitative and high-throughput methods to assess the inhibitory capacity of bacterial biocontrol candidates against fungal phytopathogens. One method measures the inhibitory effect of bacterial culture supernatant components on the fungal growth, while the other accounts for direct interaction between growing bacteria and the fungus by co-cultivating the two organisms. The antagonistic supernatant method quantifies the culture components antifungal activity by calculating the cumulative impact of supernatant addition relative to a non-treated fungal control, while the antagonistic co-cultivation method identifies the minimal bacterial cell concentration required to inhibit fungal growth by co-inoculating fungal spores with bacterial culture dilution series. Thereby, both methods provide quantitative measures of biocontrol efficiency and allow prominent fungal inhibitors to be distinguished from less effective strains. The combination of the two methods shed light on the type of inhibition mechanisms and provide the basis for further mode of action studies. We demonstrate the efficacy of the methods using Bacillus spp. with different levels of antifungal activities as model antagonists and quantify their inhibitory potency against classic plant pathogens. ImportanceFungal phytopathogens are responsible for tremendous agricultural losses on annual basis. While microbial biocontrol agents represent a promising solution to the problem, there is a growing need for high-throughput methods to evaluate and quantify inhibitory properties of new potential biocontrol agents for agricultural application. In this study, we present two high-throughput and quantitative fungal inhibition methods that are suitable for commercial biocontrol screening.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Phytopathology®
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.7%
2
Journal of Microbiological Methods
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
9.3%
3
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
301 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.6%
4
Pest Management Science
32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.9%
5
Journal of Fungi
31 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 22%
4.9%
7
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 34%
4.2%
8
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
9
Plant Pathology
16 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.8%
10
mSphere
281 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
11
Plant Disease
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
12
Fungal Genetics and Biology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
13
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.9%
14
mBio
750 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.9%
15
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
16
Microbiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
17
Microorganisms
101 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
18
Environmental Microbiology Reports
27 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
19
G3
33 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
20
New Phytologist
309 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
21
Insects
36 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.0%
22
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 21%
1.0%
23
Frontiers in Plant Science
240 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
24
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
25
Environmental Microbiology
119 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
26
Synthetic and Systems Biotechnology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
27
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
222 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
28
Microbiological Research
19 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
29
Journal of Visualized Experiments
30 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
30
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%