Cited by 14Postharvest Quality and Shelf Life ManagementPlant-Microbe Interactions and ImmunityProbiotics and Fermented Foods

Efficacy of Lactic Acid Bacteria as a Biocontrol Agent against Anthracnose (Persea americana Miller) Decay in Avocado (Persea americana) cv Fuerte Fruit

Open access
Mpeluza, Azola Siwaphiwe, Akinola, Stephen Abiola, Shoko, Tinotenda, Remize, Fabienne, Sivakumar, Dharini·2023·Agriculture

Abstract

Anthracnose disease is still a threat to avocado fruit quality, and the use of fungicide (Plochloraz®) for its control has generated safety concerns that necessitate the search for alternatives. Therefore, the efficiency of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) isolated from fresh fruits and vegetables as biocontrol agents against Colletotrichum gloeosporioides was investigated in this study. Weissella cibaria 21 (LAB 21), Leuconostoc pseudomesenteroides 56 (LAB 56), Weissella confusa 17 (LAB 17), Lactiplantibacillus plantarum 75 (LAB 75), and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum 171 (LAB 171) were evaluated in vitro as potential biocontrol agents to replace the Prochloraz® that is currently used in susceptible avocado (Persea americana Miller) Fuerte fruit. To confirm the biocontrol activity of the selected LAB strains, the antagonistic growth, spore germination, LAB recovery, nutrient competition, acid tolerance, and biofilm formation were assessed. In fruit treated with a LAB cell suspension, curatively inoculated with C. gloeosporioides, or naturally infected avocado cv Fuerte fruit, the epicatechin content and expression of defense-related genes (PAL, LOX, AVFADl 2–3, AVFAEL, and FLS) were compared with Prochloraz® and sterile water (control) treatments. With LAB 56, LAB 75, and LAB 21, significant inhibition of radial mycelial growth (MGI) (>90%) and spore germination (100%) was observed similar to those due to Prochloraz®. The MGI increased with a reduction in nutrient concentration. LAB strains reduced anthracnose disease incidence and severity compared with Prochloraz® and were the highest in LAB 21 and LAB 56. The LAB 21 and LAB 56 strains produced strong biofilms against C. gloeosporioides. In contrast to LAB 56, the control, and Prochloraz®, and LAB 21 had the highest epicatechin content (406 mg/g) and upregulated the PAL, AVFADl 2–3, AVFAEl, and FLS genes, thereby reducing the incidence of anthracnose in avocado fruit. As a result, LAB 21 suspensions can be used as an alternative to Prochloraz® in the control of anthracnose disease.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/agriculture13020269

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Pranaw, K.; Dutta, D.; Singh, S.; Khare, S.K. Lactic Acid Bacteria for Production of Platform Chemicals: A Dark Horse in the Field of Industrial Biotechnology. In Advances in the Domain of Environmental Biotechnology; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 3-25. [CrossRef] · DOI
  2. Ali, S.R.; Fradi, A.J.; Al-Aaraji, A.M. Effect of some physical factors on growth of five fungal species. Eur. Acad. Res 2017, 2, 1069-1078.
  3. Diana Andrushia, A.; Trephena Patricia, A. Artificial bee colony based feature selection for automatic skin disease identification of mango fruit. In Nature Inspired Optimization Techniques for Image Processing Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019; pp. 215-233. [CrossRef] · DOI
  4. Prusky, D.; Ardi, R.; Kobiler, I.; Beno-Moalem, D.; Leikin, A. Mechanism of resistance of avocado fruits to Colletotrichum gloeosporioides attack. In Proceedings of the ACIAR Proceedings; 1998; pp. 63-71.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mpeluza, A. S., Akinola, S. A., Shoko, T., Remize, F., & Sivakumar, D.
Affiliations
  • Tshwane University of Technology (ZA)
  • Université de Montpellier (FR)
Corresponding author
Sivakumar, Dharini
Venue
Agriculture
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-01-22
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
269
ISSN
2077-0472 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4317932393
Cited by
13
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 1
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Agriculture (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Research Foundation (NRF) (98352)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Postharvest Quality and Shelf Life Management
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant-Microbe Interactions and Immunity
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
Keywords
anthracnose, Colletotrichum gloeosporioides, lactic acid bacteria, biological control, Weissella cibaria, Leuconostoc pseudomesenteroides, Lactobacillus plantarum, biofilm formation, epicatechin, defense gene expression, mycelial growth inhibition, spore germination, fungicide alternatives, fruit decay, acid resistance, nutrient competition

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