Efficacy of Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens in the control of Aspergillus parasiticus growth and aflatoxins production on pistachio

Siahmoshteh, Fatemeh; Siciliano, Ilenia; Banani, H.; Hamidi‐Esfahani, Zohreh; Razzaghi-Abyaneh, Mehdi; Gullino, M. L.; Spadaro, D.

doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2017.05.011

Cited by 57 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This could have been influenced by the substrate, the feed that did not offer a conducive environment, which probably affected the growth and therefore aflatoxin biodegradation process. The current finding contrasts with that by Siahmoshteh et al [32] where Bacillus subtilis had 85.66% reduction in AFB1 toxin in broth culture compared to 95% in the pistachio nuts. The latter was probably because the bacteria can grow luxuriantly in presence of the nuts.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…The aflatoxin reducing activity of the Bacillus strain B 285 from this study is in agreement with findings by previous researchers who reported activities up to 97.3%, depending on the bacterial strain as well as the conditions and duration of experiment [31][32][33]. Our findings are similar to those of Petchkongkaew et al [31]; who reported Bacillus lichenformis exhibiting 74% while B. subtilis had 85% reduction of AFB1 at 37 °C after 48 h of exposure, although the current exposure lasted 4 h only.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The in vitro Efficacy of Two Microbial Strains and Physicochemical Effects on their Aflatoxin Decontamination in Poultry Feeds

Tebetyo

Bogere

Nabulime

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Contamination of animal feeds with aflatoxigenic fungi is a challenge to livestock farmers worldwide. Aflatoxins are very toxic fungal metabolites that are associated with carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic, and estrogenic effects. The toxins affect animal productivity and may lead to deaths, causing enormous economic losses. Aflatoxin decontamination is a challenge to the feed industry, despite the several approaches available. This study investigated the efficacy of two microbial isolates, Bacillus spp (B285) and Yeast strain (Y833), in reducing Aflatoxin concentration in poultry feeds in comparison with a commonly used commercial chemical binder, Bentonite. The influence of the poultry feed matrix, pH, and temperature on the aflatoxin reducing activity by the two microorganisms was also explored. Results: The in vitro studies showed that the two microorganisms and the chemical binder reduced aflatoxins by over 74% of the original concentration. The chemical binder registered the highest reduction at 93.4%; followed by Y833 (83.6%), then the combination of Y833 and B285 (77.9%); and lastly B285 (74.9%). There was no significant (p>0.05) influence of temperature on the toxin reducing capacity of all the agents tested. The pHs 4.5 and 6.5 did not have a significant effect on the performance of both chemical binder and biological agents, however, the former performed better at pH 6.5 with 95% aflatoxin reduction compared to the microorganisms. The aflatoxin reducing activity was lower in presence of feeds compared to that in Phosphate Buffered Saline except for Y833 where no difference was observed. Conclusions: Although the feed components affected the aflatoxin reducing capacity of the test materials, the chemical binder was more effective than the microbial agents. Yeast strain was more effective than the bacterial strain in reducing the aflatoxin levels, however, both are promising strategies for countering the aflatoxin challenges in animal feeds. In response to the advocacy for use of biological control agents, there is need for more investigations to establish the safety of the microorganisms, the mechanism of decontamination and safety of the products; the optimum concentrations that can reduce aflatoxins in feeds to permissible levels and the effect of the toxin contamination levels on microbial efficiency.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

The in vitro Efficacy of Two Microbial Strains and Physicochemical Effects on their Aflatoxin Decontamination in Poultry Feeds

Tebetyo

Bogere

Nabulime

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…B. subtilis was also able to inhibit A. parasiticus growth and aflatoxin production by a percentage up to 92% and 100%, respectively [15]. Thus, B. megaterium and B. subtilis showed the highest biocontrol activity, inhibiting the growth of as well as aflatoxin production by aflatoxigenic strains, while B. amyloliquefaciens was also able to reduce A. parasiticus growth as well as degrade aflatoxins B 1 , B 2 , G 1, and G 2 after several days of co-cultivation [53,54]. González et al [18] demonstrated that B. mojavensis, B. cereus, and B. mycoides isolated from soil had ability to significantly inhibit A. parasiticus growth.…”

Section: Antagonistic Microbes Against Aflatoxigenic Strainsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Control of Aflatoxigenic Molds by Antagonistic Microorganisms: Inhibitory Behaviors, Bioactive Compounds, Related Mechanisms, and Influencing Factors

Ren

Zhang

et al. 2020

Toxins

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aflatoxin contamination has been causing great concern worldwide due to the major economic impact on crop production and their toxicological effects to human and animals. Contamination can occur in the field, during transportation, and also in storage. Post-harvest contamination usually derives from the pre-harvest infection of aflatoxigenic molds, especially aflatoxin-producing Aspergilli such as Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus. Many strategies preventing aflatoxigenic molds from entering food and feed chains have been reported, among which biological control is becoming one of the most praised strategies. The objective of this article is to review the biocontrol strategy for inhibiting the growth of and aflatoxin production by aflatoxigenic fungi. This review focuses on comparing inhibitory behaviors of different antagonistic microorganisms including various bacteria, fungi and yeasts. We also reviewed the bioactive compounds produced by microorganisms and the mechanisms leading to inhibition. The key factors influencing antifungal activities of antagonists are also discussed in this review.

show abstract

“…Actinomycetes (e.g., Verheecke et al, 2014), Lactobacilli (e.g., Romanens et al, 2019), Bifidobacteria (e.g., Ghazvini et al, 2016), and Bacilli (Siahmoshteh et al, 2017) are the best-studied groups from these aspects. Several studies have conducted screening on microbial collections to find potential biocontrol isolates that inhibit mold growth, testing (1) bacteria ranging from endophytes and rhizosphere species (Wang et al, 2013); (2) traditional fermentation products (Ahlberg et al, 2017); (3) various other samples where natural interactions with toxigenic molds are far less plausible, as in halophilic soils (Jafari et al, 2018) or fish intestines (Veras et al, 2016).…”

Section: Aspergilli and Their Mycotoxins Versus Soil Microbiomementioning

confidence: 99%

The Aspergilli and Their Mycotoxins: Metabolic Interactions With Plants and the Soil Biota

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Species of the highly diverse fungal genus Aspergillus are well-known agricultural pests, and, most importantly, producers of various mycotoxins threatening food safety worldwide. Mycotoxins are studied predominantly from the perspectives of human and livestock health. Meanwhile, their roles are far less known in nature. However, to understand the factors behind mycotoxin production, the roles of the toxins of Aspergilli must be understood from a complex ecological perspective, taking mold-plant, mold-microbe, and mold-animal interactions into account. The Aspergilli may switch between saprophytic and pathogenic lifestyles, and the production of secondary metabolites, such as mycotoxins, may vary according to these fungal ways of life. Recent studies highlighted the complex ecological network of soil microbiotas determining the niches that Aspergilli can fill in. Interactions with the soil microbiota and soil macro-organisms determine the role of secondary metabolite production to a great extent. While, upon infection of plants, metabolic communication including fungal secondary metabolites like aflatoxins, gliotoxin, patulin, cyclopiazonic acid, and ochratoxin, influences the fate of both the invader and the host. In this review, the role of mycotoxin producing Aspergillus species and their interactions in the ecosystem are discussed. We intend to highlight the complexity of the roles of the main toxic secondary metabolites as well as their fate in natural environments and agriculture, a field that still has important knowledge gaps.

show abstract

Efficacy of Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens in the control of Aspergillus parasiticus growth and aflatoxins production on pistachio

Cited by 57 publications

References 43 publications

The in vitro Efficacy of Two Microbial Strains and Physicochemical Effects on their Aflatoxin Decontamination in Poultry Feeds

The in vitro Efficacy of Two Microbial Strains and Physicochemical Effects on their Aflatoxin Decontamination in Poultry Feeds

Control of Aflatoxigenic Molds by Antagonistic Microorganisms: Inhibitory Behaviors, Bioactive Compounds, Related Mechanisms, and Influencing Factors

The Aspergilli and Their Mycotoxins: Metabolic Interactions With Plants and the Soil Biota

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About