Open Access
Austin Journal of Biotechnology &
Bioengineering
Special Article - Fungal Biotechnology: Current and Future Perspective
Mycofum igation for the Biological Control of PostHarvest Diseases in Fruits and Vegetables: A Review
Go m e s AAM 1, Qu e iro z MV 1 an d Pe re ira OL2 *
Departam ento de Microbiologia, Universidade Federal
de Viçosa, Brazil
2
Departam ento de Fitopatologia, Universidade Federal de
Viçosa, Brazil
1
*Co rre s p o n d in g au th o r: Pereira OL, Departam ento de
Fitopatologia, Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Av. Peter
Henry Rolfs, s/ n - Cam pus Universitário, Viçosa – MG,
CEP. 36570 -90 0 , Brazil
Re ce ive d : J une 25, 20 15; Acce p te d : August 28, 20 15;
Pu blis h e d : Septem ber 0 2, 20 15
Abstract
There are several causes of post-harvest losses in fruits and vegetables,
and microbial infections are responsible for the greatest losses that occur during
the transport, storage, and sale of these products. Chemical control is the most
used method to control post-harvest diseases in fruits and vegetables by directly
applying synthetic fungicides to the product to be consumed. However, the
indiscriminate use of fungicides may be associated with serious toxicity problems
in humans and environmental imbalance. Mycofumigation, which is the use of
volatile antimicrobial organic compounds produced by fungi to inhibit microbial
growth, has become a promising alternative for controlling phytopathogenic
fungi associated with post-harvest diseases in fruits and vegetables. The
technique has some advantages relative to traditional disease control methods,
for example, it does not require direct contact between the antagonist and the
plant product, the antimicrobial volatiles diffuse easily in closed environments,
they do not leave residues on the plant product to be consumed, and most
of the antimicrobial volatile mixtures exhibit bioactivity against a wide range of
microorganisms, including many phytopathogens associated with post-harvest
diseases. This review highlights mycofumigation as a method for controlling
post-harvest diseases in fruits and vegetables, emphasizing the effects of
volatile compounds on phytopathogenic fungi and their potential to be applied
during the transport and storage of fresh fruits and vegetables.
Keywords: Biofumigation; Muscodor; Antimicrobial volatiles
Abbre viatio n
VOCs: Volatile Organic Compounds
In tro d u ctio n
As fruits and vegetables are usually tender and juicy, they
can become rich and adequate substrates for microbial growth
and, consequently, post-harvest infections. hese infections are
usually responsible for the greatest post-harvest losses observed in
horticultural products. For example, in citrus fruit, the Penicillium
digitatum (Pers.) Sacc. fungus is responsible for more than 90% of
post-harvest production losses [1].
Physical and physiological damage favors microbial infections,
and fruits’ and vegetables’ natural resistance to disease decreases with
maturation, favoring phytopathogen invasion. hese phytopathogens
require an entry site to start an infection and may become a serious
problem in products stored for long periods of time [2].
Post-harvest decay during the supply chain has been identiied
as the greatest cause of post-harvest losses in fruits and vegetables,
which results in signiicant economic losses [3]. It is estimated that
approximately 20-25% of the fruits and vegetables harvested in
developed countries are lost due to action/attack by phytopathogenic
microorganisms during post-harvest handling. In developing
countries, post-harvest losses are usually higher, especially due to
inadequate storage methods and transport diiculties [4].
Fungi are oten involved in the decay of fruits and vegetables.
Austin J Biotechnol Bioeng - Volume 2 Issue 4 - 2015
Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com
Pereira et al. © All rights are reserved
his microbial group stands out as important post-harvest diseasecausing agents with the highest frequency and activity, and they are
responsible for 80 to 90% of the total losses caused by microbial agents
(Figure 1). Many fungal species within the most varied genera have
been reported to be associated with post-harvest diseases in fruits
and vegetables worldwide: Penicillium Link, Aspergillus P. Micheli,
Geotrichum Link, Botrytis P. Micheli, Fusarium Link, Alternaria
Nees, Colletotrichum, Dothiorella Sacc, Lasiodiplodia Ellis & Everh,
Phomopsis Sacc. & Roum, Cladosporium Link, Phytophthora De Bary,
Pythium Nees, Rhizopus Ehrenb, Mucor P. Micheli ex L., Sclerotium
Tode, Rhizoctonia D.C. [5-12].
In addition to their potential to cause rot, some fungi that are
associated with fruits and vegetables have high potential for mycotoxin
production. hese secondary metabolites exhibit bioactivity associated
with toxic efects in humans, animals, and plants [13]. Several toxins
produced by Aspergillus, Penicillium, and Fusarium species and their
toxic efects on humans have been reported [14,15].
Practices have been adopted to reduce the incidence of fungi and
consequent damage and losses caused by post-harvest diseases in fruits
and vegetables, including manipulation of the storage environment
and resistance induction. However, the main method used to control
post-harvest diseases in fruits and vegetables is by applying fungicides
via spraying or even by immersing the horticultural products in
fungicide solution [12,16].
Studies have indicated the eiciency of several fungicides with
diferent active ingredients in controlling post-harvest decay in fruits
Citation: Gomes AAM, Queiroz MV and Pereira OL. Mycofumigation for the Biological Control of Post-Harvest
Diseases in Fruits and Vegetables: A Review. Austin J Biotechnol Bioeng. 2015; 2(4): 1051.
Pereira OL
Au s tin Pu blis h in g Gro u p
led to increased 2,6-dichloro-4-nitroaniline residue levels in plum
and nectarine and increased sodium o-phenylphenate residue levels
in citrus fruit [24]. Imazil residue was also detected in citrus fruit ater
being applied post-harvest, and the residue level was associated with
treatment method, where dip-treated fruit exhibited higher quantities
of residue than fruit treated with the same fungicide and at the same
concentration but by spraying [25].
Intensive pesticide use for disease control has admittedly caused
several environmentally related problems, such as contamination
of food, soil, water, and animals; toxicity to farmers; resistance of
pathogens to certain active ingredients in the pesticides; development
of iatrogenic diseases (occurring due to pesticide use); biological
imbalance, altering nutrient and organic matter cycling; elimination
of beneicial organisms; and reduction of biodiversity, among others
[24].
he identiication of these problems has increased the demands
for residue-free products, making it necessary to search for disease
control/management techniques in fruits and vegetables that do not
endanger consumers and to reduce the risk of toxicity to farmers and
the environmental imbalance generated by using synthetic fungicides.
Myco fu m igatio n
H arve s t D is e as e s
fo r
Co n tro llin g
Po s t-
Studies involving alternative control of plant diseases have
increased signiicantly over the last 20 years, particularly emphasizing
biological control as a promising alternative for reducing synthetic
fungicide use. he potential of several microorganisms for controlling
diferent disease-causing pathogens in fruits and vegetables has been
reported [26-29].
Figure 1: Examples of post-harvest diseases of fruits and vegetables. Bitter
Rot (A) and blue mold (B), postharvest decay of apple caused by the fungus
Colletotrichum spp. and Penicillium expansum respectively; (C) - Decay of
nectarine fruitcaused by P. expansum; (D) - Brown Rot of peach caused by
Monilinia fructicola; (E) - Black Mold caused by Aspergillus niger on garlic;
(F) - Green mold caused by P. digitatum on citrus fruits; (G) - Anthracnose of
pepper fruit caused by Colletotrichum sp.; (H) - Decay of table grapes caused
by Rhizopus stolonifer and Aspergillus niger.
and vegetables. Solutions of borax, sodium bicarbonate, and more
recently synthetic fungicides such as sodium ortho-phenyl phenate,
imazalil, and thiabendazoleare oten used for controlling post-harvest
decay in fruits and vegetables by immersing the fruit in fungicide
solution [17,18]. One classic example is the use of 2,6-dichloro4-nitroaniline to control post-harvest decay in peaches, plums,
and nectarines [19]. Another very widespread technique involves
using benzimidazoles to control post-harvest decay in cherries by
application before and ater fruit harvest [20].
Although the use of pesticides such as fungicides has positive
aspects, the vast majority of products applied are extremely toxic,
endangering human health and environmental balance. Several
studies have demonstrated the presence and persistence of fungicide
residues in fruits and vegetables [21-23]. he application of fungicides
together with high temperatures for controlling post-harvest diseases
Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com
However, the development of commercial products intended
for the biocontrol of post-harvest diseases has been limited, most
likely due to the long time period necessary to identify, develop,
and market the products, in addition to the process’s high inancial
cost. Several features characterize a microorganism as an antagonist
with potential for the development of commercial products, such as:
genetic stability; efective at low concentrations; simple nutritional
requirement; capacity to survive under adverse environmental
conditions; efective against a wide range of phytopathogens in
diferent products; resistant to the chemical products used in the
post-harvest environment; compatible with commercial processing
procedures; and lack of risk to human health [27].
he vast majority of the studies related to post-harvest biological
control involve the use of fungi or bacteria as microbiological control
agents. However, the positive efect on disease control/management
is oten only observed when the biological agent is directly applied
to the fruits or vegetables. his efect may occur mainly due to the
main antimicrobial action mechanisms triggered by antagonistic
microorganisms, namely competition for space and nutrients, and
antibiosis [4,29].
However, some questions have been raised regarding the
introduction of antagonists to the human diet and concerns for
human health and food security [29]. In addition, the fact that
most registered biocontrol products, such as Biosave (Pseudomonas
syringae Van Hall), Shemer (Metschnikowia fructicola Kurtzman
Austin J Biotechnol Bioeng 2(4): id1051 (2015) - Page - 02
Pereira OL
Au s tin Pu blis h in g Gro u p
Table 1: Species, host, lifestyle and taxonomic position of ilamentous and yeast fungi reported as VOCs producers.
Species
Host
Lifestyle
Site isolation
Taxonomic position
References
Filamentous fungi
Muscodor albus
Cinnamomum zeylanicum
Endophytic
Honduras
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariales
[30]
M. kashayum
Aegle marmelos
Endophytic
India
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariales
[37]
M. crispans
Ananas ananassoides
Endophytic
Bolivian
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariales
[36]
M. roseus
Grevillea pteridifolia
Endophytic
Honduras
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariales
[66]
M. oryzae
Oryza ruipogon
Endophytic
Thailand
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariales
[47]
M. musae
Musa acuminata
Endophytic
Thailand
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariales
[47]
M. cinnanomi
C. bejolghota
Endophytic
Thailand
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariales
[39]
M. strobelii
C. zeylanicum
Endophytic
India
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariales
[38]
M. darjeelingensis
C. camphora
Endophytic
India
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariales
[67]
M. tigerii
C. camphora
Endophytic
India
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariales
[68]
M. suthepensis
C. bejolghota
Endophytic
Thailand
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariales
[47]
M. yucatanensis
Bursera simaruba
Endophytic
Mexico
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariales
[69]
M. vitigenus
Paullinia paullinioides
Endophytic
Peru
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariales
[49]
M. equiseti
Equisetum debile
Endophytic
Thailand
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariales
[47]
M. sutura
Prestonia triidi
Endophytic
Colombia
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariales
[52]
M. fengyangensis
Actinidia chinensis
Endophytic
China
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariales
[48]
Hypoxylon sp.
Persea indica
Endophytic
Canary Islands
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariales
[55]
Nodulisporium sp.
Myroxylon balsamum
Endophytic
Ecuador
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariales
[56]
Nodulisporium sp.
Lagerstroemia loudoni
Endophytic
Thailand
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Xylariales
[57]
Myrothecium inunduatum
Acalypha indica
Endophytic
India
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Hypocreales
[53]
Gliocladium sp.
Eucryphia cordifolia
Endophytic
USA
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Hypocreales
[60]
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Hypocreales
[70]
Bionectria ochroleuca
Nothapodytes foetida
Endophytic
India
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Hypocreales
[58]
Phomopsis sp.
Odontoglossum sp.
Endophytic
Ecuador
Ascomycota, Sordariomycetes, Diaporthales
[54]
Phoma sp.
Larrea tridentate
Endophytic
USA
Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Pleosporales
[71]
Gloeosporium sp.
Tsuga heterophylla
Endophytic
USA
Ascomycota, Leotiomycetes, Helotiales
[59]
Oxyporus latemarginatus
Capsicum annum
Endophytic
Basidiomycota, Agaricomycetes
[65]
Basidiomycota, Agaricomycetes
[72]
Trichoderma atroviride
Schizophyllum commune
Saproit
Chile
Yeast fungi
Aureobasidium pullulans
Saprophytic
Ascomycota, Dothideomycetes, Dothideales
[61,62]
Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Ascomycota, Saccharomycetes, Saccharomycetales
[40,41]
Candida intermedia
Ascomycota, Saccharomycetes, Saccharomycetales
[42]
Wickerhamomyces anomalus
Ascomycota, Saccharomycetes, Saccharomycetales
[40]
Metschnikowia pulcherrima
Ascomycota, Saccharomycetes, Saccharomycetales
[40]
& Droby), BioNext, AspireTM, Leasafre International (Candida
oleophila Kaisha & Iizuka), and Yield Plus [Cryptococcus albidus
(Saito) C.E.Skinner], have similar application methods that involve
directly applying a cell suspension to horticultural products can
generate fear in the population regarding their consumption.
Mycofumigation is a diferent biological control strategy for
post-harvest diseases in fruits and vegetables that can be an efective
alternative to directly applying microorganisms to horticultural
products. his strategy consists of the use of antimicrobial Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOCs) produced by fungi.
Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com
he concept of mycofumigation started developing with the
description of Muscodor albus Worapong, Strobel & W.M.Hes, an
endophytic fungus obtained from Cinnamomum zeylanicum Breyne,
and its potential for emitting volatile compounds that inhibit the
growth and/or promote the death of many plant pathogenic agents
[30,31].
A peculiarity of antimicrobial VOCs is that they can difuse in
the air, reaching diicult-to-access habitats in closed environments
[32]. his property makes antimicrobial VOCs emitted by fungi an
additional valuable strategy for post-harvest disease biocontrol. For
example, without any direct contact between isolates, the M. albus
Austin J Biotechnol Bioeng 2(4): id1051 (2015) - Page - 03
Pereira OL
volatiles inhibited growth of a wide range of fungal species, including
Aspergillus fumigatus Fresen, A. carbonarius (Bainier) hom, A.
lavus Link, A. niger Tiegh, A. ochraceus Wilh, Penicillium verrucosum
Dierckx, P. digitatum (Pers.) Sacc. Fusarium culmorum (Wm.G.Sm.)
Sacc. F. graminearum Schwabe, Botrytis cinera Pers, Colletotrichum
acutatum J.H.Simmonds, Geotrichum candidum Link, Monilinia
fructicola (G.Winter) Honey, and Rhizopus sp., important fungal
species associated with post-harvest decay and mycotoxin production
[31,33,35].
D ive rs ity o f An tim icro bial Vo latile Organ ic
Co m p o u n d -Pro d u cin g Fu n gi
Ater the discovery of M. albus, many antimicrobial VOCproducing fungal species were identiied (Table 1). he vast majority
of these species were isolated from healthy plant tissue, especially
from tropical plants commonly used in alternative medicine, such as
Ananas ananassoides (Baker) L. B. Sm., Aegle marmelos (L.) Corr.,
Cinnamomum spp. And Myroxylon balsamum (L.) Harms [30,36-39].
Hitherto, most ilamentous fungi related to antimicrobial volatile
emission have belonged to Ascomycota, order Xylariales, and other
related ascomycetes are found in the classes Sordariomycetes,
Dothideomycetes, and Leotiomycete, all of which are endophytic
(Table 1). In a more phylogenetically distant group, the
basidiomycetes Oxyporus latemarginatus (Durieu & Mont.) Donkand
and Schizophyllum commune Fr. are also related to antimicrobial
volatile production, and S. commune is noteworthy because, unlike
the others, it was isolated from decomposing material, exhibiting a
saprophyticlife style in nature.
In addition to ilamentous fungi, some yeasts have the potential
for emitting the VOCs described. Aureobasidium pullulans (de
Bary & Löwenthal) G. Arnaud, Saccharomyces cerevisiae Meyen
ex E.C.Hansen, Candida intermedia (Cif. & Ashford) Langeron &
Guerra, Wickerhamomyces anomalus (E.C.Hansen) Kurtzman,
Robnett & Bas.-Powers, and Metschnikowia pulcherrima Pitt &
M.W.Mill. were reported emitting volatile compound mixtures that
inhibit the growth of fungi associated with post-harvest decay in
fruits and vegetables [40-42].
he identiication of fungi associated with antimicrobial VOC
production has been conducted through morphology studies and
mainly by molecular analyses of the internal transcribed spacer
(ITS) region sequences of their DNA. For species of the Muscodor
genus, identiication and even the proposal of new species have
been performed via phylogeny based on ITS region sequencing,
accompanied by the volatile compound production proile, as
specialized structures in sexual and asexual reproduction have never
yet been observed for this genus. his feature is useful for identifying
and diferentiating fungal species.
An tim icro bial Vo latile Organ ic Co m p o u n d s
( VOCs )
VOCs are solid/liquid carbon-based compounds that easily enter
the gas phase via vaporization at 0.01 KPa and temperature close to
20oC, i.e., exhibit high vapor pressure and low water solubility, which
allows them to evaporate and difuse easily through the air [16,43].
More than 250 VOCs have been identiied from fungi, occurring
Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com
Au s tin Pu blis h in g Gro u p
in the form of mixtures of simple hydrocarbons, heterocyclic
hydrocarbons, aldehydes, ketones, alcohols, phenols, thioalcohols,
thioesters and their derivatives, including benzene and cyclohexanes
[32].
VOCs may be derived from primary and secondary metabolic
pathways of microorganisms. he microorganism releases VOCs
as products of primary metabolism when it decomposes substrates
to extract nutrients necessary for its maintenance. In contrast,
in secondary metabolism, VOC production is usually related to
competition for resources in nutrient-poor environments [44].
he proiles of volatiles produced by a certain species or isolates
may vary, depending on the substrate used for growth, incubation
duration, nutrient type present, temperature, and other environmental
parameters [32,45]. he same M. albus 620 isolate shows variation in
volatile proile composition depending on the nutrient concentration
in the growth medium, where the number of volatile compounds
detected was higher in culture media that exhibited a greater quantity
of the carbon source [46].
he VOCs produced by Muscodor species consist mainly of lowmolecular-weight esters, alcohols, and acids, with diferences between
the compound mixtures produced by diferent species of the genus.
However, the VOC mixture produced by most Muscodor species has
antimicrobial bioactivity [47,48].
Muscodor species vary regarding the VOC mixture emitted.
Muscodor crispans Mitch, Strobel, Hess, Vargas & Ezra, for example,
do not produce naphthalene or azulene derivatives, compounds
observed in other species of the genus Muscodor [36]. In contrast,
naphthalene predominates in the VOC mixture emitted by M.
vitigenus Daisy, Strobel, Ezra & Hess, and the VOC mixture emitted
by this fungus does not exhibit antifungal bioactivity, though it has
previously demonstrated lethality in insects [49].
Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry analyses of the VOC
mixture produced by M. albus reveal the presence of at least 28
diferent VOCs, representing at least ive classes of organic substances,
where the esters contributed the highest percentage in the mixture,
followed by alcohols, acids, lipids, and ketones [31].
he antimicrobial action spectra of the compounds emitted
by certain species or isolates seem to be afected by the compound
mixture emitted by each isolate. Several studies have demonstrated
that the volatile mixture among Muscodor species varies, and the
action spectrum also varies, with some being more eicient in
inhibiting the growth of certain fungi than others [31,37-39,47-49].
An tim icro bial Effe cts o f th e VOCs Pro d u ce d
by Fu n gi in Po s t-H arve s t Path o ge n s in Fru its
an d Ve ge table s
Most studies on the antimicrobial efects of volatiles produced
by fungi involve Muscodor species (Figure 2), although the biological
functions of the toxic compounds produced are still not well
elucidated. Most Muscodor spp. isolates and other antimicrobial
volatile-producing species are endophytic.VOC emission by these
fungi may act as a defense mechanism for the host plant against
pathogen attack, helping the antimicrobial VOC-producing
Austin J Biotechnol Bioeng 2(4): id1051 (2015) - Page - 04
Pereira OL
Au s tin Pu blis h in g Gro u p
compounds emitted by M. albus shows DNA damage in Escherichia
coli cells when exposed to VOCs emitted by the fungus, which
most likely resulted in the interruption of the replication and/or
transcription processes; the compounds also caused morphological
changes in the cells, generating increased luidity of the cell membrane
[50].
he antimicrobial potential of the compounds emitted by M.
albus against diverse microbial groups among fungi, bacteria, and
oomycetes has been described in the literature. Growth (in vitro) of
B. cinerea, A. fumigatus, Tapesia yallundae Wall work & Spooner,
Rhizoctonia solani Kühn, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary,
Candida albicans (C.P.Robin) Berkhout, Pythium ultimumTrow,
Verticillium dahliae Kleb, Phytophthora cinnamomi Rands, E. coli,
Bacillus subtilis, Staphylococcus aureus, and Micrococcus luteus,
representative of diverse groups of fungi, oomycetes and bacteria, was
inhibited, and their cells died ater exposure to VOCs emitted by M.
albus isolates [30,31].
he efects of the VOCs emitted by M. albus 620 were reported
(in vitro) against three important fungi frequently associated with
post-harvest decay, S. sclerotiorum, B. cinerea and Penicillium
expansum Link. he volatiles emitted by the M. albus 620 isolate
exhibited signiicant efects in the germination of B. cinerea and P.
expansum spores, preventing the conidia of these fungi to germinate
and reducing S. sclerotiorum colony diameter growth. For both
treatments, the source of M. albus 620 used was rye grain colonized
by the fungus, and higher grain weight (0.25 g to 1.25 g/L) in each
treatment corresponded to a stronger observed efect, where 1.25 g/L
completely inhibited B. cinerea and P. expansum spore generation
and S. sclerotiorum growth [51].
he volatiles emitted by M. albus were also tested against important
toxin-producing fungi. Conidia of Aspergillus carbonarius (Bainier)
hom, A. lavus, A. niger, A. ochraceus, P. verrucosum, F. culmorum,
and F. graminearum died or their germination was inhibited (in vitro)
when exposed to volatiles produced by M. albus colonizing rye grain
at 20oC. When conidia of the same fungi were separately exposed to
the compounds most abundant in the compound mixture emitted
by M. albus, isobutyric acid and 2-methyl-1-butanol, the same
magnitude of efect was not observed [34].
Figure 2: In vitro effect of VOCs produced by Muscodor sp. (2 – upper side
of the plate) inhibiting the mycelial growth of A. ochraceus (A2 – bottom of the
plate); A. niger (B2 – bottom of the plate); F. semitectum (C2 – bottom of the
plate); A. lavus (D2 – bottom of the plate). Control (A1–D1).
endophyte survive by preventing colonization of the host plant by
microorganisms that compete for the same ecological niche [31].
Toxicity from exposure to M. albus appears to be associated with
combined action of the compounds present in the mixture. Each
of the ive classes of volatile compounds produced by the fungus
(alcohols, esters, ketones, acids, and lipids) had some inhibitory efect
against fungi and bacteria when tested alone but did not cause their
death. However, they acted synergistically when collectively tested in
the mixture, killing a wide range of fungi and bacteria pathogenic to
plants and humans [31].
A recent attempt to elucidate the action mechanism of the volatile
Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com
In addition to M. albus, other Muscodor species have also been
reported to inhibit the growth of fungi associated with post-harvest
decay. VOCs emitted by M. crispans were efective against a wide
range of phytopathogens, among which B. cinerea, Colletotrichum
lagenarium Caruso & Kuc, Fusarium avenaceum (Fr.) Sacc., F.
culmorum, Phytophthora palmivora Butler (Butler), P. ultimum,
S. sclerotiorum, G. candidum, A. fumigatus, and Curvularia lunata
(Wakker) Boedijn exhibited inhibited colony growth. Additionally,
except for the last three, 24-hour exposure to the compound mixture
emitted by M. crispans led to cell death [36].
he volatiles emitted by M. strobelii exhibited a broad spectrum of
activity against yeasts, bacteria, and ilamentous fungi and, among the
fungi tested, the VOCs completely inhibited the growth of Penicillium
citreonigrum Dierckx, B. cinerea, and Aspergillus japonicus Saitoater
three days of exposure. he mixture of compounds emitted by M.
strobelii is diferent from the mixtures of other species of the genus
Austin J Biotechnol Bioeng 2(4): id1051 (2015) - Page - 05
Pereira OL
Au s tin Pu blis h in g Gro u p
Muscodor, exhibiting 4-octadecylmorpholine as the most abundant
compound, along with tetraoxapropellan and aspidofractinine-3methanol; the last two compounds are not encountered among the
volatiles of the other Muscodor species [38].
assay, the antagonist was inoculated in culture medium deposited at
the bottoms of glass boxes containing apples artiicially inoculated
with the phytopathogens, thus preventing direct contact between the
antagonist and the fruit [62].
Variation in compounds present in the VOC mixture among
Muscodor species also occurred in M. sultura, where there is
variation in the compound mixture proile compared with other
Muscodor species, producing higher abundances of propanoic acid,
2-methyl, and thujopsene. he VOCs emitted by M. sultura exhibited
antimicrobial bioactivity against a wide range of fungi, inhibiting
the growth of A. fumigatus, B. cinerea, C. lagenarium, Ceratocystis
ulmi (Buisman) C. Moreau, Cercospora beticola Sacc., G. candidum,
Mycosphaerella ijiensis M. Morelet, P. cinnamomi, P. palmivora,
Pythium ultimum, R. solani, S. sclerotiorum, and V. dahliae ater
two days of exposure, promoting death of their cells. Many of these
species are important phytopathogenic fungi associated with postharvest decay in fruits and vegetables [52].
Other yeasts, such as Candida intermedia, Wickerhamomyces
anomalus, and Metschnikowia pulcherrima, have been tested for
post-harvest disease control in fruit. Isolates of these yeasts were
used to control B. cinera colonization in strawberry and table grape.
he VOCs emitted inhibited B. cinera growth in vitro, and the yeasts
reduced disease severity when applied in vivo. However, the efect on
the inhibition of disease development was more intense ater directly
applying yeast suspension to the strawberries inoculated with B.
cinera [40,42].
Other Muscodor species, such as M. musae, M. oryzae, M.
suthepensis and M. equiseti N. Suwannarach & S. Lumyong, were
described together with the antimicrobial potential of VOCs
emitted. hese VOCs showed antimicrobial activity against several
microorganisms, including important post-harvest phytopathogens,
such as A. lavus, B. cinerea, Colletotrichum capsici (Syd. & P. Syd.)
Butler & Bisby, Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Penz. & Sacc.,
Colletotrichum musae (Berk.& Curtis) Arx, Penicillium digitatum,
and P. expansum, and in most cases, the exposure to the compounds
emitted by these Muscodor species inhibited 100% of phytopathogen
growth and caused death of their cells [47].
Muscodor species are not the only fungi that have been reported
to emitanti microbial volatiles with the potential to inhibit growth
and even kill post-harvest phytopathogenic fungi in fruits and
vegetables. For Myrothecium inundatum Tode, Phomopsis sp.,
Hypoxylon sp., Nodulisporium sp., Bionectria ochroleuca (Schwein.)
Schroers & Samuels, Schizophyllum commune RF., Gloeosporium
sp., and Gliocladium sp., even though these fungi do not exhibit
the same efects observed in Muscodor spp. compounds in vitro,
the VOCs produced by isolates of these fungi reduced the growth
of important fungi associated with post-harvest diseases, such as
Aspergillus ochraceus, A. lavus, A. fumigatus, B. cinerea, C. capsici,
C. gloeosporioide, C. lagenarium, C. musae, G. candidum, Penicillium
digitatum, Penicillium expansum, Phytophthora palmivora, Pythium
ultimum, and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum [53-60].
In addition to in vitro assays, some studies have been performed
to elucidate the potential of VOCs produced by fungi to control postharvest diseases in fruits and vegetables by mycofumigation of the
horticultural product. he VOCs emitted by Aureobasidium pullulans
yeast isolates inhibited (in vitro) conidial germination of post-harvest
disease-causing phytopathogens in apple. Furthermore, when tested
in vivo, the VOCs reduced the incidence of blue mold and bitter
rot in apple caused by Penicillium expansum and Colletotrichum
acutatum, respectively; however, the greatest efect was observed
ater directly applying the antagonists to the fruit [61]. In later tests
(in vivo), VOCs of the same isolates signiicantly reduced B. cinerea
and P. expansum infection in apple, as observed by the smaller size
of damage in the fruit compared with the control treatment; in this
Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com
he potential of volatiles produced by M. albus to control postharvest diseases in fresh fruit by mycofumigation was also studied.
Mycofumigation of apple with M. albus culture controlled blue mold
(Penicillium expansum) and gray mold (Botrytis cinerea) in apples
inoculated with the phytopathogens, without requiring direct contact
between the fruit and the M. albus culture. he same was observed
in peaches inoculated with Monilinia fructicola, where fumigation
with M. albus culture promoted complete control of brown rot in
an assay performed using closed plastic boxes. In organic table grape
(‘hompson Seedless’ and ‘Red Seedless’ varieties), mycofumigation
with M. albus culture in plastic boxes reduced the incidence of postharvest decay [35,63,64].
Mycofumigation with Oxyporus latemarginatus isolate culture
also reduced development of gray mold caused by B. cinera in apples
[65]. In citrus, mycofumigation with Nodulisporium sp. isolate culture
controlled green mold decay in Citrus limon caused by Penicillium
digitatum and blue mold decay in Citrus aurantifolia and C. reticulata
caused by P. expansum [57].
Co n clu s io n
Mycofumigation is a promising alternative for reducing postharvest losses in fruits and vegetables caused by fungi. he method has
potential to be applied during the transport and storage of fresh fruits
and vegetables, where the presence of antimicrobial VOCs, such as
compound mixtures produced by M. albus cultures, may increase the
shelf lives of these horticultural products by reducing the incidence
of post-harvest diseases. he potential of some fungi to emit VOCs
able to inhibit or cause death of important phytopathogenic fungi
associated with post-harvest decay, without requiring direct contact
with the product to be consumed, together with the wide range of
microorganisms sensitive to VOCs from fungal species, makes
mycofumigation an interesting method for controlling post-harvest
diseases, which, unlike traditional methods, reduces risks to human
health and environmental contamination.
Ackn o w le d ge m e n t
he authors thank the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento
Cientíico e Tecnológico – CNPq, Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento
de Pessoal de Nível Superior – CAPES and Fundação de Amparo
a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais – FAPEMIG for inancial
support.
Austin J Biotechnol Bioeng 2(4): id1051 (2015) - Page - 06
Pereira OL
References
1. Macarisin D, Cohen L, Eick A, Rafael G, Belausov E, Wisniewski M, et al.
Penicillium digitatum Suppresses Production of Hydrogen Peroxide in Host
Tissue During Infection of Citrus Fruit. Phytopathology. 2007; 97: 1491-1500.
2. Droby S, Chalutz E, Wilson CL, Wisniewski ME. Alternative to the use of
synthetic fungicides. Phytoparasitica. 1992; 20: 149-153.
Au s tin Pu blis h in g Gro u p
control of blue mould using new fungicides and biocontrol yeasts lowers
levels of fungicide residues and patulin contamination in apples. Postharvest
Biol Tec. 2011; 60: 164-172.
23. López-Fernández O, Rial-Otero R, González-Barreiro C, Simal-Gándara J.
Surveillance of fungicidal dithiocarbamate residues in fruits and vegetables.
Food Chem. 2012; 134: 366-374.
3. Prusky D. Reduction of the incidence of postharvest quality losses, and future
prospects. Prospects Food Secur. 2011; 3: 463-474.
24. Schirra M, D’Aquino S, Cabras P, Angioni A. Control of postharvest
diseases of fruit by heat and fungicides: eficacy, residue levels, and residue
persistence. A review. J Agric Food Chem. 2011; 59: 8531-8542.
4. Sharma RR, Singh D, Singh R. Biological control of postharvest diseases of
fruits and vegetables by microbial antagonists: A review. Biol Control. 2009;
50: 205-221.
25. Brown GE, Dezman DJ. Uptake of Imazalil by Citrus Fruit after Postharvest
Application and the Effect of Residue Distribution on Sporulation of Penicillium
digitatum. Plant Dis. 1990; 97: 1491-1500.
5. Aloui H, Khwaldia K, Licciardello F, Mazzaglia A, Muratore G, Hamdi M, et
al. Eficacy of the combined application of chitosan and Locust Bean Gum
with different citrus essential oils to control postharvest spoilage caused by
Aspergillus lavus in dates. Int J Food Microbiol. 2014; 170: 21-28.
6. Auger J, Pérez I, Esterio M. Diaporthe ambigua Associated with Post-Harvest
Fruit Rot of Kiwifruit in Chile. Plant Dis. 2013; 97: 843.
7. Bourret TB, Kramer EK, Rogers JD, Glawe DA. Isolation of Geotrichum
candidum pathogenic to tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) in Washington
State. N Am Fungi. 2013; 8: 1-7.
8. Frank CO, Kingsley CA. Role of Fungal Rots in Post-harvest Storage Loses
in Some Nigerian Varieties of Dioscorea Species. Br. Microbiol Res J. 2014;
4: 343-350.
9. Fischer IH, Lourenço SF, Spósito MB, Amorim L. Characterisation of the
fungal population in citrus packing houses. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2009; 123:
449-460.
10. Kou LP, GaskinsVL, Luo YG, Jurick II WM. First Report of Fusarium
avenaceum Causing Postharvest Decay of ‘Gala’ Apple Fruit in the United
States. Plant Dis. 2014; 98: 690.
11. Youssef K, Ligorio A, Sanzani SM, Nigro F, Ippolito A. Control of storage
diseases of citrus by pre- and postharvest application of salts. Postharvest
Biol Tec. 2012; 72: 57-63.
12. Snowdon AL. Post-Harvest: Diseases and Disorders of Fruits and vegetables.
Manson Publishing. 1991.
13. Placinta CM, D’mello JPF, MacDonald AMC. A review of worldwide
contamination of cereal grains and animal feed with Fusarium mycotoxins.
Anim Feed Sci Tech. 1999; 78: 21-37.
14. Kamei K, Watanabe A. Aspergillus mycotoxins and their effect on the host.
Med Mycol. 2005; 43 Suppl 1: S95-99.
15. Sweeney MJ, Dobson AD. Mycotoxin production by Aspergillus, Fusarium
and Penicillium species. Int J Food Microbiol. 1998; 43: 141-158.
16. Jamalizadeh M, Etebarian HR, Aminian H, Alizadeh A. A review of
mechanisms of action of biological control organisms against post-harvest
fruit spoilage. EPPO Bulletin. 2011; 41: 65-71.
17. Montesinos-Herrero C, Smilanick JL, Tebbets JS, Walse S, Palou L. Control
of citrus postharvest decay by ammonia gas fumigation and its inluence on
the eficacy of the fungicide imazalil. Postharvest Biol Tec. 2011; 59: 85-93.
18. Hao W, Zhong G, Hu M, Luo J, Weng Q, Rizwan-Ul-Haq M. Control of citrus
postharvest green and blue mold and sour rot by tea saponin combined with
imazalil and prochloraz. Postharvest Biol Tec. 2010; 56: 39-43.
19. Wells JM, Harvey JM. Combination heat and 2,6-dichloro-4-nitroaniline
treatments for control of Rhizopus and brown rot of peaches, plums, and
nectarines. Phytopathology. 1970; 60: 116-120.
20. Feliziani E, Santini M, Landi L, Romanazzi G. Pre- and postharvest treatment
with alternatives to synthetic fungicides to control postharvest decay of sweet
cherry. Postharvest Biol Tec. 2013; 78: 133-138.
21. Torres CM, Picó Y, Mañes J. Determination of pesticide residues in fruit and
vegetables. J Chromatogr A. 1996; 754: 301-331.
22. Lima G, Castoria R, De Curtis F, Raiola A, Ritieni A, De Cicco V. Integrated
Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com
26. Fravel DR. Commercialization and implementation of biocontrol. Annu Rev
Phytopathol. 2005; 43: 337-359.
27. Droby S, Wisniewski M, Macarisin D, Wilson C. Twenty years of postharvest
biocontrol research: Is it time for a new paradigm? Postharvest Biol Tec.
2009; 52: 137-145.
28. Cao J, Zhang H, Yang Q, Ren R. Eficacy of Pichia caribbica in controlling
blue mold rot and patulin degradation in apples. Int J Food Microbiol. 2013;
162: 167-173.
29. Talibi I, Boubaker H, Boudyach EH, Aoumar AAB. Alternative methods for
the control of postharvest citrus diseases. J Appl Microbiol. 2014; 117: 1-17.
30. Worapong J, Strobel GA, Ford EJ, Li JY, Baird G, HESS WM. Muscodor
albus anam. nov. an endophyte from Cinnamomum zeylanicum. Mycotaxon.
2001; 79: 67-79.
31. Strobel GA, Dirkse E, Sears J, Markworth C. Volatile antimicrobials from
Muscodor albus, a novel endophytic fungus. Microbiology. 2001; 147: 29432950.
32. Morath SU, Hung R, Bennett JW. Fungal volatile organic compounds:
A review with emphasis on their biotechnological potential. Fungal Biol
Reviews. 2012; 26: 73-83.
33. Strobel G. Muscodor species – endophytes with biological promise.
Phytochemistry Reviews. 2011; 10: 165-172.
34. Braun G, Vailati M, Prange R, Bevis E. Muscodor albus volatiles control
toxigenic fungi under Controlled Atmosphere (CA) storage conditions. Int J
Mol Sci. 2012; 13: 15848-15858.
35. Mercier J, Jiménez JI. Control of fungal decay of apples and peaches by the
biofumigant fungus Muscodor albus. Postharvest Biol. Tec. 2004; 31: 1-8.
36. Mitchell AM, Strobel GA, Hess WM, Vargas PN, Ezra D. Muscodor crispans,
a novel endophyte from Ananas ananassoides in the Bolivian Amazon.
Fungal Divers. 2008; 31: 37-43.
37. Meshram V, Kapoor N, Saxena S. Muscodor kashayum sp. nov. - a new
volatile anti-microbial producing endophytic fungus. Mycology. 2013; 4: 196204.
38. Meshram V, Kapoor N, Saxena S. Muscodor kashayum sp. nov. - a new
volatile anti-microbial producing endophytic fungus. Mycology. 2013; 4: 196204.
39. From South India. Mycotaxon. 2014; 128: 93-104.
40. Suwannarach N, Bussaban B, Hyde KD, Lumyong S. Muscodor cinnamomi,
a new endophytic species from Cinnamomum bejolghota. Mycotaxon. 2010;
114: 15-23.
41. Parafati L, Vitale A, Restuccia C, Cirvilleri G. Biocontrol ability and action
mechanism of food-isolated yeast strains against Botrytis cinerea causing
post-harvest bunch rot of table grape. Food Microbiol. 2015; 47: 85-92.
42. Batista-Fialho M, Moraes MHD, Tremocoldi AR, Pascholati SF. Potential of
antimicrobial volatile organic compounds to control Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in
bean seeds. Pesq Agropec Bras. 2011; 46: 137-142.
43. Huang R, Li GQ, Zhang J, Yang L, Che HJ, Jiang DH, et al. Control of
postharvest Botrytis fruit rot of strawberry by volatile organic compounds of
Candida intermedia. Phytopathology. 2011; 101: 859-869.
Austin J Biotechnol Bioeng 2(4): id1051 (2015) - Page - 07
Pereira OL
Au s tin Pu blis h in g Gro u p
44. Pagans E, Font X, Sánchez A. Emission of volatile organic compounds from
composting of different solid wastes: abatement by bioiltration. J Hazard
Mater. 2006; 131: 179-186.
60. Schaible GA, Strobel GA, Mends MT, Geary B, Sears J. Characterization of
an Endophytic Gloeosporium sp. and Its Novel Bioactivity with “Synergistans”.
Microb Ecol. 2015; 70: 41-50.
45. Korpi A, Järnberg J, Pasanen AL. Microbial volatile organic compounds. Crit
Rev Toxicol. 2009; 39: 139-193.
61. Stinson M, Ezra D, Hess WM, Sears J, Strobel G. An endophytic Gliocladium
sp. of Eucryphia cordifolia producing selective volatile antimicrobial
compounds. Plant Sci. 2003; 165: 913-922.
46. Schotsmans WC, Braun G, DeLong JM, Prange RK. Temperature and
controlled atmosphere effects on eficacy of Muscodor albus as a biofumigant.
Biol Control. 2008; 44:101-110.
47. Ezra D, Strobel GA. Effect of substrate on the bioactivity of volatile
antimicrobials produced by Muscodor albus. Plant Sci. 2003; 165: 1229-1238.
48. Suwannarach N, Kumla J, Bussaban B, Hyde KD, Matsui K, Lumyong L.
Molecular and morphological evidence support four new species in the genus
Muscodor from northern Thailand. Ann Microbiol. 2013; 63: 1341-1351.
49. Zhang CL, Wang GP, Mao LJ, Komon-Zelazowska M, Yuan ZL, Lin FC, et
al. Muscodor fengyangensis sp. nov. from southeast China: morphology,
physiology and production of volatile compounds. Fungal Biol. 2010; 114:
797-808.
50. Daisy B, Strobel G, Ezra D, Castillo U, Baird G, Hess WM. Muscodor vitigenus
anam. sp. nov., an endophyte from Paullinia paullinioides. Mycotaxon. 2002;
84: 39-50.
51. Alpha CJ, Campos M, Jacobs-Wagner C, Strobel SA. Mycofumigation by
the volatile organic compound-producing Fungus Muscodor albus induces
bacterial cell death through DNA damage. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015; 81:
1147-1156.
52. Ramin AL, Braun PG, Prange RK, DeLong JM. In vitro Effects of Muscodor
albus and Three Volatile Components on Growth of Selected Postharvest
Microorganisms. HortScience. 2005; 40: 2109-2114.
53. Kudalkar P, Strobel G, Riyaz-Ul-Hassan S, Geary B, Sears J. Muscodor
sutura, a novel endophytic fungus with volatile antibiotic activities.
Mycoscience.2012; 53: 319-325.
54. Banerjee D, Strobel GA, Booth E, Geary B, Sears J ,Spakowicz D, et al. An
endophytic Myrothecium inundatum producing volatile organic compounds.
Mycosphere. 2010; 1: 229-240.
55. Singh SK, Strobel GA, Knighton B, Geary B, Sears J, Ezra D. An endophytic
Phomopsis sp. possessing bioactivity and fuel potential with its volatile
organic compounds. Microb Ecol. 2011; 61: 729-739.
56. Tomsheck AR, Strobel GA, Booth E, Geary B, Spakowicz D, Knighton B, et
al. Hypoxylon sp., an endophyte of Persea indica, producing 1,8-cineole and
other bioactive volatiles with fuel potential. Microb Ecol. 2010; 60: 903-914.
57. Mends MT, Yu E, Strobel GA, Riyaz-Ul-Hassan S, Eric Booth E, Geary B, et
al. An Endophytic Nodulisporium sp. Producing Volatile Organic Compounds
Having Bioactivity and Fuel Potential. J Pet Environ Biotechnol. 2012; 3: 1-7.
58. Suwannarach N, Kumla J, Bussaban B, Nuangmek W, Matsui K, Lumyong S.
Biofumigation with the endophytic fungus Nodulisporium spp. CMU-UPE34
to control postharvest decay of citrus fruit. Crop Protection. 2013; 45: 63-70.
62. Mari M, Martini C, Spadoni A, Rouissi W, Bertolini P. Biocontrol of apple
postharvest decay by Aureobasidium pullulans. Postharvest Biol Tec. 2012;
73: 56-62.
63. Di Francesco A, Ugolini L, Lazzeri L, Mari M. Production of volatile organic
compounds by Aureobasidium pullulans as a potential mechanism of action
against postharvest fruit pathogens. Biol Control. 2015; 81: 8-14.
64. Mercier J, Jiménez-Santamaría JI, Tamez-Guerra P. Development of the
Volatile-Producing Fungus Muscodor albus Worapong, Strobel, and Hess as
a Novel Antimicrobial Biofumigant. Rev Mex Fitopatol. 2007; 25: 173-179.
65. Mercier J, Lego SF, Smilanick JL. In-package use of Muscodor albus volatilegenerating sachets and modiied atmosphere liners for decay control in
organic table grapes under commercial conditions. Fruits. 2010; 65: 31-38.
66. Lee SO, Kim HY, Choi GJ, Lee HB, Jang KS, Choi YH, et al. Mycofumigation
with Oxyporus latemarginatus EF069 for control of postharvest apple decay
and Rhizoctonia root rot on moth orchid. J Appl Microbiol. 2009; 106: 12131219.
67. Worapong J, Strobel G, Daisy B, Castillo UF, Baird G, Hess WM. Muscodor
roseus anam. sp. nov., an endophyte from Grevillea pteridifolia. Mycotaxon.
2002; 81: 463-475.
68. Saxena S, Meshram V, Kapoor N. Muscodor darjeelingensis, a new
endophytic fungus of Cinnamomum camphora collected from northeastern
Himalayas. Sydowia. 2014; 66: 55-67.
69. Saxena S, Meshram V, Kapoor N. Muscodor tigerii sp. nov.-Volatile antibiotic
producing endophytic fungus from the Northeastern Himalayas. Ann
Microbiol. 2014; 65: 47-57.
70. Gonzalez MC, Anaya AL, Glenn AE, Macías-Rubalcava ML, HernandezBautista BE, Hanlin RT. Muscodor yucatanensis, a new endophytic
ascomycete from Mexican chakah, Bursera simaruba. Mycotaxon. 2009;
110: 363-372.
71. Stoppacher N, Kluger B, Zeilinger S, Krska R, Schuhmacher R. Identiication
and proiling of volatile metabolites of the biocontrol fungus Trichoderma
atroviride by HS-SPME-GC-MS. J Microbiol Methods. 2010; 81: 187-193.
72. Strobel G, Singh SK, Riyaz-Ul-Hassan S, Mitchell AM, Geary B, Sears J. An
endophytic/pathogenic Phoma sp. from creosote bush producing biologically
active volatile compounds having fuel potential. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2011;
320: 87-94.
73. Schalchli H, Hormazabal E, Becerra J, Birkett M, Alvear M, Vidal M, et al.
Antifungal activity of volatile metabolites emitted by mycelial cultures of
saprophytic fungi. Chem Ecol. 2011; 27: 503-513.
59. Samaga PV, Rai VR, Rai KML. Bionectria ochroleuca NOTL33—an
endophytic fungus from Nothapodytes foetida producing antimicrobial and
free radical scavenging metabolites. Ann Microbiol. 2014; 64: 275-285.
Austin J Biotechnol Bioeng - Volume 2 Issue 4 - 2015
Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com
Pereira et al. © All rights are reserved
Submit your Manuscript | www.austinpublishinggroup.com
Citation: Gomes AAM, Queiroz MV and Pereira OL. Mycofumigation for the Biological Control of Post-Harvest
Diseases in Fruits and Vegetables: A Review. Austin J Biotechnol Bioeng. 2015; 2(4): 1051.
Austin J Biotechnol Bioeng 2(4): id1051 (2015) - Page - 08