4.6 Article

Characterization of endophytic strains of Bacillus mojavensis and their production of surfactin isomers

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONTROL
卷 62, 期 1, 页码 1-9

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2012.03.006

关键词

Bacillus mojavensis; Bacterial endophyte; Biocontrol; Fusarium verticillioides; Endophytic bacterium; Fumonisin; Maize endophyte; Surfactin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacillus subtilis consists of a large collection of strains from which several cryptic species have been delineated, and most of these along with strains within the species are important biocontrol agents. Bacillus mojavensis, a species recently distinguished from this broad B. subtilis group of bacteria, was determined to be endophytic and to have biocontrol potential due to its inhibition of the maize mycotoxic fungus Fusarium verticillioides. Recently, we reported that a patented strain B. mojavensis produced the biosurfactant Leu(7)-surfactin that was inhibitory to fungi. In this study, the first objective was to validate the identity of strains, and analyze genotypically a collection of B. mojavensis strains, which involved analysis of repetitive-PCR amplified Bacillus DNA sequences with a PCR genotyping bar system. In an effort to understand further surfactin production, a second objective was to screen this collection of B. mojavensis strains for surfactin analogs. The results indicated that all strains are valid B. mojavensis, and that there was genotypic diversity among strains from the great deserts. Further, the study established that most strains can produce a mixture of surfactins that was comprised of acyl chain lengths ranging from C-11 to C-17. These experiments indentified high producers of C-15 surfactin, the most biologically active isoform. However, the in vitro inhibition observed did not necessarily relate to total surfactin concentrations, suggesting a complex mechanism for inhibition and/or the presence of other unknown factors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据