Paper · 2022 · Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control

Antagonistic and growth-promoting potential of multifarious bacterial endophytes against Fusarium wilt of chickpea

Annie Khanna; Kushal Raj; Pankaj Kumar; et al.

13
claims
21
verbatim quotes
28
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Abstract Background Chickpea is the most important legume crop in India, and its productivity is significantly lowered due to biotic constraints such as wilt caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp . ciceris . Endophytes help plants to thrive better under stress conditions by regulating plant hormones and inducing systemic resistance. The aim of the present study was to identify chickpea root bacterial endophytes having antagonistic ability for the management of the Fusarium wilt. Results Twenty endophytic bacterial strains were isolated from the susceptible and resistant chickpea cultivar, amongst which 35% bacterial endophytes gave positive results for siderophore and 15% isolates were HCN producers, whereas 55% showed good growth on ACC-supplemented medium. Based upon 16S rRNA phylogenetic analysis, efficient endophytic bacterial isolates CRBE1, CRBE3 and CRBE7 were identified as Priestia megaterium, Brucella haematophila and Microbacterium paraoxydans , respectively. Bacterial endophyte CRBE7 and CRBE3 showed pronounced antagonistic activity against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris under in vitro conditions. Inoculation of chickpea with isolated bacterial endophytes alone and in combination through seed priming resulted in significant biocontrol activity against Fusarium wilt of chickpea under screenhouse conditions. Biopriming of chickpea seeds alone with CRBE3 and as consortium of CRBE3 + CRBE7 upsurged the phenol content in susceptible and resistant chickpea varieties JG 62 and HC 3, which indicated the role of promising endophytes as potential bio-agents under in vivo conditions. Conclusions Chickpea root bacterial endophytes Priestia megaterium (CRBE1), Brucella haematophila (CRBE3) and Microbacterium paraoxydans (CRBE7) exhibiting antagonistic activity could be incorporated in integrated disease management module against Fusarium wilt of chickpea.

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 13

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Among chickpea endophytes, 35% were siderophore positive.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Interactor
bacterial endophytese0symbiont
Outcome
siderophoree0
Value
35%e0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“35% bacterial endophytes gave positive results for siderophore”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 607–669 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–114 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fifteen percent of chickpea endophyte isolates produced HCN.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Outcome
HCN producerse0
Value
15%e0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“15% isolates were HCN producers”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 674–705 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–114 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fifty five percent of chickpea endophytes grew well on ACC supplemented medium.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Outcome
good growth on ACC-supplemented mediume0
Value
55%e0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“55% showed good growth on ACC-supplemented medium”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 715–764 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–114 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

CRBE1 was identified as Priestia megaterium.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Interactor
Priestia megateriumPriestia megateriume0symbiont
Outcome
identified as Priestia megateriume0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Priestia megaterium
Priestia megaterium · InteractorOsmoregulator / Osmoregulator at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“CRBE1, CRBE3 and CRBE7 were identified as Priestia megaterium, Brucella haematophila and Microbacterium paraoxydans , respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 849–979 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–114 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

CRBE3 was identified as Brucella haematophila.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Interactor
Brucella haematophilaBrucella haematophilae0symbiont
Outcome
Brucella haematophilae0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“CRBE1, CRBE3 and CRBE7 were identified as Priestia megaterium, Brucella haematophila and Microbacterium paraoxydans , respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 849–979 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–114 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

CRBE7 was identified as Microbacterium paraoxydans.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Interactor
Microbacterium paraoxydansMicrobacterium paraoxydanse0symbiont
Outcome
Microbacterium paraoxydanse0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“CRBE1, CRBE3 and CRBE7 were identified as Priestia megaterium, Brucella haematophila and Microbacterium paraoxydans , respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 849–979 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–114 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

CRBE7 antagonized Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris in vitro.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Interactor
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cicerisFusarium oxysporum f. sp. cicerise0pathogen
Second interactor
CRBE7e0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
antagonistic activity against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cicerise0
Setting
in vitro conditionse0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris · Interactor · picture of its genus (no picture of exactly this name)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Bacterial endophyte CRBE7 and CRBE3 showed pronounced antagonistic activity against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris under in vitro conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 981–1124 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–114 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

CRBE3 antagonized Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris in vitro.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
Interactor
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cicerisFusarium oxysporum f. sp. cicerise0pathogen
Second interactor
CRBE3e0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
antagonistic activity against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cicerise0
Setting
in vitro conditionse0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris · Interactor · picture of its genus (no picture of exactly this name)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Bacterial endophyte CRBE7 and CRBE3 showed pronounced antagonistic activity against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris under in vitro conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 981–1124 · show in text ↑
t0

“chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 106–114 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Seed priming with isolated bacterial endophytes alone significantly controlled chickpea Fusarium wilt in a screenhouse.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
isolated bacterial endophytes alonee0
Interactor
FusariumFusariume0pathogen
Outcome
biocontrol activity against Fusarium wilt of chickpeae0
Setting
screenhouse conditionse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium
Fusarium · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Inoculation of chickpea with isolated bacterial endophytes alone and in combination through seed priming resulted in significant biocontrol activity against Fusarium wilt of chickpea under screenhouse conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1126–1337 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Seed priming with combined bacterial endophytes significantly controlled chickpea Fusarium wilt in a screenhouse.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
isolated bacterial endophytes alone and in combination through seed priminge0
Interactor
FusariumFusariume0pathogen
Outcome
biocontrol activity against Fusarium wilt of chickpeae0
Setting
screenhouse conditionse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium
Fusarium · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Inoculation of chickpea with isolated bacterial endophytes alone and in combination through seed priming resulted in significant biocontrol activity against Fusarium wilt of chickpea under screenhouse conditions”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1126–1337 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

CRBE3 seed biopriming increased phenol content in JG 62 and HC 3 chickpea.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Material
JG 62 and HC 3e0
Treatment
CRBE3e0
Interactor
CRBE3e0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
phenol contente0
Direction
upsurgede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Biopriming of chickpea seeds alone with CRBE3 and as consortium of CRBE3 + CRBE7 upsurged the phenol content in susceptible and resistant chickpea varieties JG 62 and HC 3”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1339–1510 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

CRBE3 plus CRBE7 seed biopriming increased phenol content in JG 62 and HC 3 chickpea.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Material
JG 62 and HC 3e0
Treatment
CRBE3 + CRBE7e0
Interactor
CRBE3e0biocontrol_agent
Second interactor
CRBE7e0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
phenol contente0
Direction
upsurgede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Biopriming of chickpea seeds alone with CRBE3 and as consortium of CRBE3 + CRBE7 upsurged the phenol content in susceptible and resistant chickpea varieties JG 62 and HC 3”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1339–1510 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors propose the three chickpea endophytes for integrated Fusarium wilt management.

Taxon
ChickpeaCicer arietinume0
Interactor
FusariumFusariume0pathogen
Outcome
incorporated in integrated disease management module against Fusarium wilt of chickpeae0

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

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium
Fusarium · Interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Chickpea root bacterial endophytes Priestia megaterium (CRBE1), Brucella haematophila (CRBE3) and Microbacterium paraoxydans (CRBE7) exhibiting antagonistic activity could be incorporated in integrated disease management module against Fusarium wilt of chickpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1623–1884 · show in text ↑

inoculation · Fusarium · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 3 positive, 2 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

seed treatment · Fusarium · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 10 positive, 1 negative or no effect

9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 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.