Review: Utilization of antagonistic yeasts to manage postharvest fungal diseases of fruit
Abstract
Significant losses in harvested fruit can be directly attributable to decay fungi. Some of these pathogenic fungi are also the source of mycotoxins that are harmful to humans. Biological control of postharvest decay of fruits, vegetables and grains using antagonistic yeasts has been explored as one of several promising alternatives to chemical fungicides, the use of which is facing increasingly more stringent regulation. Yeast species have been isolated over the past two decades from a variety of sources, including fruit surfaces, the phyllosphere, soil and sea water, and their potential as postharvest biocontrol agents has been investigated. Several mechanisms have been proposed as responsible for their antagonistic activity, including competition for nutrients and space, parasitism of the pathogen, secretion of antifungal compounds, induction of host resistance, biofilm formation, and most recently, the involvement of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in defense response. It has been recognized that a biocontrol system is composed of a three-way interaction between the host (commodity), the pathogen and the yeast, all of which are affected by environmental factors. Efficacy and consistent performance in controlling postharvest diseases are the hurdles that must be overcome if the use of yeast biocontrol agents and other alternatives are to be widely used commercially. Therefore, attempts have been made to combine alternative treatments in order improve their overall performance. The current review provides a brief overview of the topic of the use of yeasts as postharvest biocontrol agents and includes information on the sources from which yeast antagonists have been isolated, their mode of action, and abiotic stress resistance in yeast as it relates to biocontrol performance. Areas in need of future research are also highlighted.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In agriculture, yeasts have been identified as powerful antagonists of fungal pathogens causing postharvest and storage diseases and of microorganisms attacking flowers and leaves.
“In agriculture, yeasts have been identified as powerful antagonists of fungal pathogens causing postharvest and storage diseases and of microorganisms attacking flowers and leaves [25–31].”
From Competition assays and physiological experiments of soil and phyllosphere yeasts identify Candida subhashii as a novel antagonist of filamentous fungi (2017) · cites this paper as [29]
Cites
Droby, S., Vinokur, V., Weiss, B., Cohen, L., Daus, A., Goldschmidt, E. E., & Porat, R. (2002) · Phytopathology® · doi:10.1094/phyto.2002.92.4.393 · Cited by 325 · see citing works
Self-citationSipiczki, M. (2006) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.01275-06 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
Wisniewski, M., Biles, C., Droby, S., McLaughlin, R., Wilson, C., & Chalutz, E. (1991) · Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology · doi:10.1016/0885-5765(91)90033-e · Cited by 274 · see citing works
Self-citationSaravanakumar, D., Ciavorella, A., Spadaro, D., Garibaldi, A., & Gullino, M. L. (2008) · Postharvest Biology and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2007.11.006 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
Bar-Shimon, M., Yehuda, H., Cohen, L., Weiss, B., Kobeshnikov, A., Daus, A., Goldway, M., Wisniewski, M., & Droby, S. (2004) · Current Genetics · doi:10.1007/s00294-003-0471-7 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Self-citationKarabulut, O. A., Smilanick, J. L., Gabler, F. M., Mansour, M., & Droby, S. (2003) · Plant Disease · doi:10.1094/pdis.2003.87.11.1384 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
Self-citationCastoria, R., De Curtis, F., Lima, G., & De Cicco, V. (1997) · Postharvest Biology and Technology · doi:10.1016/s0925-5214(97)00061-6 · Cited by 121 · see citing works
Zhang, D., Spadaro, D., Valente, S., Garibaldi, A., & Gullino, M. L. (2012) · International Journal of Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.12.016 · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Postharvest biocontrol: new concepts and applications.
Wisniewski, M., Wilson, C., Droby, S., Chalutz, E., El-Ghaouth, A., & Stevens, C. (2007) · Biological control: a global perspective · doi:10.1079/9781845932657.0262 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Spadaro, D., & Droby, S. (2016) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2015.11.003 · Cited by 732 · see citing works
Self-citationParafati, L., Vitale, A., Restuccia, C., & Cirvilleri, G. (2015) · Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.fm.2014.11.013 · Cited by 391 · see citing works
Antifungal Microbial Agents for Food Biopreservation—A Review
Leyva Salas, M., Mounier, J., Valence, F., Coton, M., Thierry, A., & Coton, E. (2017) · Microorganisms · doi:10.3390/microorganisms5030037 · Cited by 349 · see citing works
Chen, X., Zhang, Y., Fu, X., Li, Y., & Wang, Q. (2016) · Postharvest Biology and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2015.12.021 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Biofilm production by Aureobasidium pullulans improves biocontrol against sour rot in citrus
Klein, M. N., & Kupper, K. C. (2018) · Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/j.fm.2017.07.008 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Hilber-Bodmer, M., Schmid, M., Ahrens, C. H., & Freimoser, F. M. (2017) · BMC Microbiology · doi:10.1186/s12866-016-0908-z · Cited by 106 · see citing works
“Other Candida species have also been studied for their biocontrol potential and as commercial plant protection agents against postharvest decay of fruits, based on Candida species, have been developed (see above) [29, 43, 44].”
BackgroundKonsue, W., Dethoup, T., & Limtong, S. (2020) · Microorganisms · doi:10.3390/microorganisms8030317 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Yeasts from Different Habitats and Their Potential as Biocontrol Agents
Pretscher, J., Fischkal, T., Branscheidt, S., Jäger, L., Kahl, S., Schlander, M., Thines, E., & Claus, H. (2018) · Fermentation · doi:10.3390/fermentation4020031 · Cited by 104 · see citing works
Lee, G., Lee, S.-H., Kim, K. M., & Ryu, C.-M. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep39432 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
- Authors
- Liu, J., Sui, Y., Wisniewski, M., Droby, S., & Liu, Y.
- Affiliations
- Hefei University of Technology (CN)
- Agricultural Research Service (US)
- Agricultural Research Organization (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Liu, Jia
- Liu, Yongsheng
- Venue
- International Journal of Food Microbiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-10
- Volume
- 167
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 153-160
- ISSN
- 0168-1605 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2073373772
- Cited by
- 521
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 30 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 14
- FWCI
- 2.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Food Microbiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Key Project from the Government of Anhui Province (2012AKKG0739)
- National Science and Technology Key Project of China (2011CB100401, 2007AA10Z100)
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (31171179)
- Advanced Program of Doctoral Fund of Ministry of Education of China (20110181130009)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Postharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Fungal Plant Pathogen Control
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Yeasts and Rust Fungi Studies
- Keywords
- antagonistic yeasts, postharvest fungal diseases, fruit decay, biological control, biological control agents, mycotoxins, antifungal agents, reactive oxygen species, biofilm formation, abiotic stress tolerance, fungicide alternatives
- MeSH terms
- Antibiosis, Food Contamination, Fruit, Fungi, Stress, Physiological, Yeasts, Biological Control Agents
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
