Paper · 2016 · Scientific Reports

Bacillus cereus strain S2 shows high nematicidal activity against Meloidogyne incognita by producing sphingosine

Huijuan Gao; Gaofu Qi; Rong Yin; et al.

5
claims
8
verbatim quotes
154
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Plant-parasitic nematodes cause serious crop losses worldwidely. This study intended to discover the antagonistic mechanism of Bacillus cereus strain S2 against Meloidogyne incognita. Treatment with B. cereus strain S2 resulted in a mortality of 77.89% to Caenorhabditis elegans (a model organism) and 90.96% to M. incognita. In pot experiment, control efficiency of B. cereus S2 culture or supernatants were 81.36% and 67.42% towards M. incognita, respectively. In field experiment, control efficiency was 58.97% towards M. incognita. Nematicidal substances were isolated from culture supernatant of B. cereus S2 by polarity gradient extraction, silica gel column chromatography and HPLC. Two nematicidal compounds were identified as C16 sphingosine and phytosphingosine by LC-MS. The median lethal concentration of sphingosine was determined as 0.64 μg/ml. Sphingosine could obviously inhibit reproduction of C. elegans, with an inhibition rate of 42.72% for 24 h. After treatment with sphingosine, ROS was induced in intestinal tract, and genital area disappeared in nematode. Furthermore, B. cereus S2 could induce systemic resistance in tomato, and enhance activity of defense-related enzymes for biocontrol of M. incognita. This study demonstrates the nematicidal activity of B. cereus and its product sphingosine, as well provides a possibility for biocontrol of M. incognita.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

B. cereus S2 culture had 81.36% control efficiency against M. incognita in pots.

Treatment
B. cereus S2 culturee0
Interactor
M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pest
Second interactor
B. cereus S2Bacillus cereuse0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
control efficiencye0
Value
81.36%e0
Setting
pot experimente0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Meloidogyne incognita
Meloidogyne incognita · InteractorPhoto by William Wergin and Richard Sayre. Colorized by Stephen Ausmus. U.S. Department of Agriculture · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bacillus cereus
Bacillus cereus · Second interactorMogana Das Murtey and Patchamuthu Ramasamy · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In pot experiment, control efficiency of B. cereus S2 culture or supernatants were 81.36% and 67.42% towards M. incognita, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 326–462 · show in text ↑
t0

“systemic resistance in tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1119–1148 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

B. cereus S2 supernatant had 67.42% control efficiency against M. incognita in pots.

Treatment
supernatantse0
Interactor
M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pest
Second interactor
B. cereus S2Bacillus cereuse0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
control efficiencye0
Value
67.42%e0
Setting
pot experimente0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Meloidogyne incognita
Meloidogyne incognita · InteractorPhoto by William Wergin and Richard Sayre. Colorized by Stephen Ausmus. U.S. Department of Agriculture · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bacillus cereus
Bacillus cereus · Second interactorMogana Das Murtey and Patchamuthu Ramasamy · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In pot experiment, control efficiency of B. cereus S2 culture or supernatants were 81.36% and 67.42% towards M. incognita, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 326–462 · show in text ↑
t0

“systemic resistance in tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1119–1148 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Field control efficiency against M. incognita was 58.97%.

Interactor
M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pest
Outcome
control efficiencye0
Value
58.97%e0
Setting
field experimente0

Not reportedTreatmentComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Meloidogyne incognita
Meloidogyne incognita · InteractorPhoto by William Wergin and Richard Sayre. Colorized by Stephen Ausmus. U.S. Department of Agriculture · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In field experiment, control efficiency was 58.97% towards M. incognita.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 463–535 · show in text ↑
t0

“systemic resistance in tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1119–1148 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

B. cereus S2 induced systemic resistance in tomato.

Treatment
B. cereus S2e0
Interactor
B. cereus S2Bacillus cereuse0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
systemic resistancee0
Direction
inducee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bacillus cereus
Bacillus cereus · InteractorMogana Das Murtey and Patchamuthu Ramasamy · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“B. cereus S2 could induce systemic resistance in tomato”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1093–1148 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

B. cereus S2 enhanced defense-related enzyme activity in tomato.

Treatment
B. cereus S2e0
Interactor
M. incognitaMeloidogyne incognitae0pest
Second interactor
B. cereus S2Bacillus cereuse0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
activity of defense-related enzymese0
Direction
enhancee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Solanum lycopersicum
Solanum lycopersicum · TaxonKod B · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Meloidogyne incognita
Meloidogyne incognita · InteractorPhoto by William Wergin and Richard Sayre. Colorized by Stephen Ausmus. U.S. Department of Agriculture · CC BY 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bacillus cereus
Bacillus cereus · Second interactorMogana Das Murtey and Patchamuthu Ramasamy · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“B. cereus S2 could induce systemic resistance in tomato, and enhance activity of defense-related enzymes for biocontrol of M. incognita.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1093–1229 · show in text ↑

Bacillus cereus · Meloidogyne incognita · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree

4 papers: 4 positive, 0 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

Bacillus cereus · disease · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results agree

6 papers: 6 positive, 0 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.