The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 89 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Biocontrol of Postharvest Fruit Fungal Diseases by Bacterial Antagonists: A Review
Open accessAbstract
This review deals with the main mechanisms of action exerted by antagonistic bacteria, such as competition for space and nutrients, suppression via siderophores, hydrolytic enzymes, antibiosis, biofilm formation, and induction of plant resistance. These mechanisms inhibit phytopathogen growth that affects postharvest fruit since quality and safety parameters are influenced by the action of these microorganisms, which cause production losses in more than 50% of fruit tree species. The use of synthetic fungicide products has been the dominant control strategy for diseases caused by fungi. However, their excessive and inappropriate use in intensive agriculture has brought about problems that have led to environmental contamination, considerable residues in agricultural products, and phytopathogen resistance. Thus, there is a need to generate alternatives that are safe, ecological, and economically viable to face this problem. Phytopathogen inhibition in fruit utilizing antagonist microorganisms has been recognized as a type of biological control (BC), which could represent a viable and environmentally safe alternative to synthetic fungicides. Despite the ecological benefit that derives from the use of controllers and biological control agents (BCA) at a commercial level, their application and efficient use has been minimal at a global level.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Plant growth-promoting bacterial endophytes
Santoyo, G., Moreno-Hagelsieb, G., del Carmen Orozco-Mosqueda, M., & Glick, B. R. (2016) · Microbiological Research · doi:10.1016/j.micres.2015.11.008 · Cited by 1,778
Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): their potential as antagonists and biocontrol agents
Beneduzi, A., Ambrosini, A., & Passaglia, L. M. P. (2012) · Genetics and Molecular Biology · doi:10.1590/s1415-47572012000600020 · Cited by 1,463
Fruiting body formation by Bacillus subtilis
Branda, S. S., González-Pastor, J. E., Ben-Yehuda, S., Losick, R., & Kolter, R. (2001) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.191384198 · Cited by 1,129
Bais, H. P., Fall, R., & Vivanco, J. M. (2004) · Plant Physiology · doi:10.1104/pp.103.028712 · Cited by 1,034
B IOLOGICAL C ONTROL OF P OSTHARVEST D ISEASES OF F RUITS
Janisiewicz, W. J., & Korsten, L. (2002) · Annual Review of Phytopathology · doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.40.120401.130158 · Cited by 1,013
Twenty years of postharvest biocontrol research: Is it time for a new paradigm?
Droby, S., Wisniewski, M., Macarisin, D., & Wilson, C. (2009) · Postharvest Biology and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2008.11.009 · Cited by 758
Emerging microbial biocontrol strategies for plant pathogens
Syed Ab Rahman, S. F., Singh, E., Pieterse, C. M. J., & Schenk, P. M. (2018) · Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2017.11.012 · Cited by 743
Spadaro, D., & Droby, S. (2016) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2015.11.003 · Cited by 732
A major protein component of the Bacillus subtilis biofilm matrix
Branda, S. S., Chu, F., Kearns, D. B., Losick, R., & Kolter, R. (2006) · Molecular Microbiology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2958.2005.05020.x · Cited by 706
Bacillus subtilis biofilm induction by plant polysaccharides
Beauregard, P. B., Chai, Y., Vlamakis, H., Losick, R., & Kolter, R. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1218984110 · Cited by 594
Cited by
Biological control of plant diseases – What has been achieved and what is the direction?
Collinge, D. B., Jensen, D. F., Rabiey, M., Sarrocco, S., Shaw, M. W., & Shaw, R. H. (2022) · Plant Pathology · doi:10.1111/ppa.13555 · Cited by 319
Morales-Cedeño, L. R., Orozco-Mosqueda, M. D. C., Loeza-Lara, P. D., Parra-Cota, F. I., de los Santos-Villalobos, S., & Santoyo, G. (2021) · Microbiological Research · doi:10.1016/j.micres.2020.126612 · Cited by 316
Fernandez-San Millan, A., Farran, I., Larraya, L., Ancin, M., Arregui, L. M., & Veramendi, J. (2020) · Microbiological Research · doi:10.1016/j.micres.2020.126480 · Cited by 86
Metadata
- Authors
- Carmona-Hernandez, S., Reyes-Pérez, J., Chiquito-Contreras, R., Rincon-Enriquez, G., Cerdan-Cabrera, C., & Hernandez-Montiel, L.
- Venue
- Agronomy
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2019-03-05
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 121
- ISSN
- 2073-4395 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2918646826
- Cited by
- 282
- References
- 89
- FWCI
- 18.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Biocontrol of Postharvest Fruit Fungal Diseases by Bacterial Antagonists: A Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3390/agronomy9030121
- The paper
- Carmona-Hernandez, S., Reyes-Pérez, J., Chiquito-Contreras, R., Rincon-Enriquez, G., Cerdan-Cabrera, C., & Hernandez-Montiel, L. (2019). Biocontrol of Postharvest Fruit Fungal Diseases by Bacterial Antagonists: A Review. Agronomy. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9030121
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
