MODE OF ACTION IN BIOCONTROL AGENT-PHYTOPATHOGEN SYSTEM

(POST GRADUATE SEMINAR delivered on 06-11-2009 by)

U. K. Kandoliya

DEPARTMENT OF BIOCHEMISTRY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
JUNAGADH AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, JUNAGADH

Among the greatest hazards in crop production, diseases caused by phytopathogens is one of
the main threats to sustainable food production. For combating phytopathogens, many successful
measures including chemical control have been developed over the years. Though the chemical have
played a significant role, extensive use of broad spectrum compounds, has resulted in a variety of
harmful and undesirable effect on man, wildlife and ecosystem. Intensive use of chemicals has also
leads to the increase in pathogen resistance to those chemicals. The risks associated with its
residues on the agricultural product, have highlighted the need for a more effective and safer
alternative control measures. The knowledge regarding mode of action of an organism that made it a
good biocontrol agent is useful for its successful implementation against specific phytopathogen.
Disease and phytopathogen:
Disease is the any malfunctioning of host cell or tissue that result from continuous irritation
by a pathogenic agent or environmental factors and leads to development of symptoms. Pathogenic
agent or phytopathogen is an organism that causes a disease in plant by utilizing host cell content or
interfering with host cells metabolic process causing a death of cell through enzymes and toxins or
by interfering with translocation of food, minerals and water. Phytopathogen includes fungi, bacteria
viruses and nematodes.
Biocontrol and Biocontrol agents:
Biological control involves destruction of the propagative units or biomass of the
phytopathogen, prevention of inoculums formation, weakening or displacement of the pathogen in
infested residue, reduction of vigor or virulence of the pathogen by use of antagonistic organism.
Potential biocontrol agents include fungi, bacteria and viruses (Whipps, 2001). It controls the disease
by various mode of action as described under.
Mode of action:
Competition: It is considered as a ‘classical’ mode of action of biological control. It involves
competition between biocontrol antagonist and phytopathogen for space and nutrient as observed in
nonpathogenic strain of Fusarum oxysporum, strain of Pseudomonas fluorescens as well as
Trichoderma (Kaur et.al., 2007, Nashwa et. al., 2008). This mechanism is assumed to be involved if
no evidence for parasitism or antibiosis is found in a particular interaction. The biological control
ability of selected Pseudomonas fluorescens can be the result of siderophore mediated competition
for iron(Reddy et.al., 2008). Siderophores produced by biocontrol bacteria have a higher affinity for
iron than the siderophores produced by fungal pathogens, allowing the former microbes to scavenge
most of the available iron, and thereby prevent proliferation of fungal pathogens (Bashan and
Bashan, 2005)
Parasitism: Parasitism is a detrimental relationship between two organism in which one organism
benefits at the expense of other. This mechanism is well observed in Trichoderma (Chaube et.al.,
2003) as well as certain bacterial biocontrol agent(Ziedan and Mohamedy, 2008). This is a complex
process that involves tropic growth of biocontrol agent towards the target pathogen, coiling, final
attack and dissolution of target pathogen’s cell wall/cell membrane by the activity of enzymes.
Antibiosis: Antibiosis is a phenomena of inhibition of phytopathogen by biocontrol agents by
producing antibiotic like organic substance (Dikin et.al., 2007). Antibiotics have detrimental effect
even at low concentration to growth and metabolism. Hydrolytic enzymes produced by some
biocontrol agent like Trichoderma spp. and Pseudomonas spp. can lyse fungal cell walls, but not
plant cell walls (Diby et.al., 2005), and thereby prevent phytopathogens from proliferating to the
extent that the plant is endangered. Some biocontrol agents produce a wide range of low-molecular-
weight metabolites with antifungal potential. The best known example is hydrogen cyanide (HCN),
produced by bacteria can inhibit the pathogen causing black root rot in tobacco.
Induced resistance or plant growth promotion: Biocontrol agents, both fungal and bacterial, are
reported to induce growth of various crops. Treatment with biocontrol agent like bacteria and fungi
have been reported to sensitize plant to defend themselves against phytopathogenic attack by
triggering various defense mechanism including accumulation of phenolics, mycolytic enzymes like
chitiase and glucanase, pathogenesis related proteins including peroxidase, polyphenol oxidase and
phenylalanine ammonia lyase (Karthikeyan et.al., 2006).
Advantages of Biocontrol: They help to reduce the use of chemical-based fungicides, reduce the
risk of developing pathogen resistant to traditional chemicals, in most cases they are safer to use.
They tend to be more stable than chemical pesticides if stored properly and in most cases they are
less phytotoxic.
Conclusion:
Understanding the mode of action of biocontrol agent-phytopathogen system will help to
develop rational models for the exploitation of antagonists in agro ecosystems against specific
pathogen. Knowledge of various compounds produced by the biological agent in the rhizosphere will
be useful for management of the disease. Multiple mode of action is exhibited by Trichoderma spp.
and Pseudonons spp makes it effective against wide range of pathogen.
Referance:
Bashan, Y. and Bashan, L. E. (2005). Encyclopedia of soils in the environment. Vol. 1. pp. 103-115.
Chaube, H. S., Mishra, D.S., Varsheney, S. and Singh, U.S. (2003). Annu. Rev. Pl. Pathol., 2:1-42.
Diby, P., Saju, K.A., Jisha, P.J., Sharma, Y.R., Kumar, A. and Anandraj, M. (2005). Ann. of Micro., 55
(2) :129-133.
Dikin, A., Sijam, K., Kadir J. and Seman, I. A. (2007). Int. J. Agri. Biol., 9( 2):311-314.
Karthikeyan, M., Radhika, K., Mathiyazhagan, S., Bhaskaran, R., Samiyappan, R. and Velazhahan, R.
(2006). Braz. J. Pl. Physiol., 18(3):367-377.
Kaur, R., Singh, R.S. and Alabouvette, C. (2007). Asian J. of Pl. Sci., 6(3):446-454.
Nashwa, M.A., Sallam, K.A.M., Abo-Elyousr and Hassan, M.A.E. (2008). Egypt. J. Phytopatho.,
36(1-2):81-93.
Reddy, B. P., Reddy K. R. N., Rao, M. S. and Rao, K. S. (2008). Curr. Tre. in Biotech. and Pharma.,
2 (1) :178-182.
Whipps J.M. (2001). J. of Exp. Bot.,52:487-511.
Ziedan, E.H.E. and Mohamedy, R.S.R. (2008). Res. J. of Agri. and Biol. Sci., 4(5): 346-353.
