Paper · 2023 · Microorganisms

Avirulent Isolates of Penicillium chrysogenum to Control the Blue Mold of Apple Caused by P. expansum

Holly P. Bartholomew; Dianiris Luciano-Rosario; Michael J. Bradshaw; et al.

11
claims
20
verbatim quotes
5
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Blue mold is an economically significant postharvest disease of pome fruit that is primarily caused by Penicillium expansum. To manage this disease and sustain product quality, novel decay intervention strategies are needed that also maintain long-term efficacy. Biocontrol organisms and natural products are promising tools for managing postharvest diseases. Here, two Penicillium chrysogenum isolates, 404 and 413, were investigated as potential biocontrol agents against P. expansum in apple. Notably, 404 and 413 were non-pathogenic in apple, yet they grew vigorously in vitro when compared to the highly aggressive P. expansum R19 and Pe21 isolates. Whole-genome sequencing and species-specific barcoding identified both strains as P. chrysogenum. Each P. chrysogenum strain was inoculated in apple with the subsequent co-inoculation of R19 or Pe21 simultaneously, 3, or 7 days after prior inoculation with 404 or 413. The co-inoculation of these isolates showed reduced decay incidence and severity, with the most significant reduction from the longer establishment of P. chrysogenum. In vitro growth showed no antagonism between species, further suggesting competitive niche colonization as the mode of action for decay reduction. Both P. chrysogenum isolates had incomplete patulin gene clusters but tolerated patulin treatment. Finally, hygromycin resistance was observed for both P. chrysogenum isolates, yet they are not multiresistant to apple postharvest fungicides. Overall, we demonstrate the translative potential of P. chrysogenum to serve as an effective biocontrol agent against blue mold decay in apples, pending practical optimization and formulation.

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 11

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Isolates 404 and 413 were non-pathogenic in apple.

Material
404 and 413e0
Outcome
non-pathogenice0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“404 and 413 were non-pathogenic in apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 505–545 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Both candidate isolates grew vigorously in vitro compared with P. expansum R19 and Pe21.

Interactor
P. expansumPenicillium expansume0pathogen
Outcome
grew vigorouslye0
Comparator
P. expansum R19 and Pe21 isolatese0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Penicillium expansum
Penicillium expansum · InteractorH.J. Larsen, Bugwood.org · CC BY 3.0 us · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 74–79 · show in text ↑
e0

“they grew vigorously in vitro when compared to the highly aggressive P. expansum R19 and Pe21 isolates”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 551–653 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sequencing and barcoding identified both isolates as P. chrysogenum.

Interactor
P. chrysogenumPenicillium chrysogenume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
identified both strains as P. chrysogenume0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Penicillium chrysogenum
Penicillium chrysogenum · InteractorCrulina 98 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 74–79 · show in text ↑
e0

“Whole-genome sequencing and species-specific barcoding identified both strains as P. chrysogenum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 655–751 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Co-inoculation reduced apple decay incidence and severity.

Treatment
co-inoculation of these isolatese0
Outcome
decay incidence and severitye0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 74–79 · show in text ↑
e0

“The co-inoculation of these isolates showed reduced decay incidence and severity”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 924–1004 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Longer establishment of P. chrysogenum gave the greatest decay reduction.

Interactor
P. chrysogenumPenicillium chrysogenume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
reductione0
Direction
most significant reductione0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Penicillium chrysogenum
Penicillium chrysogenum · InteractorCrulina 98 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 74–79 · show in text ↑
e0

“with the most significant reduction from the longer establishment of P. chrysogenum”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1006–1089 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

In vitro growth showed no antagonism between the species.

Outcome
no antagonism between speciese0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 74–79 · show in text ↑
e0

“In vitro growth showed no antagonism between species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1091–1143 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Competitive niche colonization was suggested as the mode of decay reduction.

Outcome
decay reductione0
Qualifier
competitive niche colonizatione0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 74–79 · show in text ↑
e0

“suggesting competitive niche colonization as the mode of action for decay reduction”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1153–1236 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Both P. chrysogenum isolates had incomplete patulin gene clusters.

Interactor
P. chrysogenumPenicillium chrysogenume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
incomplete patulin gene clusterse0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Penicillium chrysogenum
Penicillium chrysogenum · InteractorCrulina 98 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 74–79 · show in text ↑
e0

“Both P. chrysogenum isolates had incomplete patulin gene clusters”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1238–1303 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Both P. chrysogenum isolates tolerated patulin treatment.

Interactor
P. chrysogenumPenicillium chrysogenume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
tolerated patulin treatmente0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Penicillium chrysogenum
Penicillium chrysogenum · InteractorCrulina 98 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 74–79 · show in text ↑
e0

“Both P. chrysogenum isolates had incomplete patulin gene clusters but tolerated patulin treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1238–1335 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Both P. chrysogenum isolates showed hygromycin resistance.

Interactor
P. chrysogenumPenicillium chrysogenume0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
hygromycin resistancee0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Penicillium chrysogenum
Penicillium chrysogenum · InteractorCrulina 98 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“Apple”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 74–79 · show in text ↑
e0

“hygromycin resistance was observed for both P. chrysogenum isolates”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1346–1413 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Neither candidate isolate was multiresistant to apple postharvest fungicides.

Outcome
not multiresistant to apple postharvest fungicidese0

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

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“they are not multiresistant to apple postharvest fungicides”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1419–1478 · show in text ↑

inoculation · disease · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results

63 papers: 23 positive, 40 negative or no effect

22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 40 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

59 papers more in this group

See all 63 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.