2006
DOI: 10.1007/s10526-005-1034-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Effect of Chitinase on Didymella applanata, the Causal Agent of Raspberry Cane Spur light

Abstract: In vitro and in vivo studies were conducted to assess the efficacy of the two microbial chitinases Chi I (from Streptomyces sp.) and Chi II (from Serratia marcescens) on Didymella applanata (Niessl.) Sacc., the fungus which causes spur blight of raspberry (Rubus idaeus L.). D. applanata was isolated from canes of diseased raspberries in a plantation in Novosibirsk, Russia. In vitro, the effective concentration of Chi I that reduced the growth of D. applanata was 0.4 U/ml (p=0.05), but Chi II had no influence o… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
(18 reference statements)
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, in the presence of these crude preparations and prodigiosin from S. marcescens CAB 1094, we observed a significant decrease in the numbers of culturable yeast cells. These results support the findings of others who discovered that a number of fungi, including Didymella applanata [62], Fusarium oxysporum [65], Trichoderma reesei and Phycomyces blakesleeanus [56], are relatively resistant in vitro to the effect of S. marcescens chitinases. However, studies indicate that the co-inoculation of S. marcescens and Pseudomonas fluorescens enhances the antifungal activity of P. fluorescens towards F. oxysporum [65], and it was contented that this enhanced antifungal effect was a result of S. marcescens chitinase activity.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…However, in the presence of these crude preparations and prodigiosin from S. marcescens CAB 1094, we observed a significant decrease in the numbers of culturable yeast cells. These results support the findings of others who discovered that a number of fungi, including Didymella applanata [62], Fusarium oxysporum [65], Trichoderma reesei and Phycomyces blakesleeanus [56], are relatively resistant in vitro to the effect of S. marcescens chitinases. However, studies indicate that the co-inoculation of S. marcescens and Pseudomonas fluorescens enhances the antifungal activity of P. fluorescens towards F. oxysporum [65], and it was contented that this enhanced antifungal effect was a result of S. marcescens chitinase activity.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…[7] However, even if all nonchemical measures are used, successful control of D. applanata inevitably requires fungicide treatments. [5,8] With few fungicides documented as effective in spur blight control many years ago (Bordeaux mixture, benomyl, captafol, captan, copper oxychloride, dichlofluanid, dithianon, ferbam, mancozeb, thiram and zineb), [4,[9][10][11] it is very difficult to make an appropriate fungicide selection. Beside insufficient number of available fungicides, many of these chemicals (benomyl, captafol, dichlofluanid, ferbam, and zineb) are not approved for further use in the EU region.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both fungal diseases induce the development of necrotic lesions on raspberry canes that can cause premature cane or plant death in severe cases. Most authors report that infection is restricted to the outer bark tissue but others believe that the fungus may also invade the inner tissue (Williamson & Jennings, 1992;Shternshis et al, 2006). The diseases often blight the fruit-bearing spurs that are produced on the side branches, cause premature leaf drop and kill buds on the canes that later develop into fruit-bearing side branches.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Consequently, these diseases cause economi-cally important losses, which can be as high as 60% in years when climatic conditions are favourable for the development of the fungus (Williamson & Hargreaves, 1981). Growers try to counteract the impact of spur and cane blight with fungicide treatments or by the use of resistant or tolerant raspberry genotypes with improved phenolic compositions (Jennings, 1983;Shternshis et al, 2006).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%