Abstract
Stenocarpella maydis and Sporisorium reilianum are phytopathogenic fungi that cause white rot in corn cob and head smut in maize (Zea mays L.) respectively, diseases that are spread worldwide and cause many economic losses. In this chapter the characteristics of the above diseases, such as their life cycle, pathogenicity factors, control methods, as well as the biotechnological potential of the fungi involved in this processes are described, specifically in connection to their extracellular enzymes.
Keywords
- Disease of maize
- head smut in corn
- Stenocarpella maydis
- Sporisorium reilianum
- pathogenicity factors
- Zea mays
1. Introduction
The crop diseases caused by fungi represent a major obstacle to agriculture worldwide. Corn (
2. Overview of Sporisorium reilianum and Stenocarpella maydis
2.1. Sporisorium reilianum
2.1.1. General characteristics
The life cycle begins when a dikaryotic young teliospore, suffers karyogamy, giving rise to a spore mature diploid uninucleate. When optimum temperature and humidity conditions are presented, they germinate producing a structure called promycelium, where the nucleus divides by meiosis and the resulting four nuclei pass to lateral cells to form four haploid basidiospores of different sexual compatibility. These can remain in saprophytic manner with their division being by gemmation. I t is said that at this point the fungus is in its yeast phase (Figure 2).
When two yeasts with different sexual compatibility (a and b) produce and recognize pheromones, they may come into contact with the young tissues of a plant, forming a complementation tube which allows cell fusion (somatogamy), giving rise to an infective stage which is constituted by a septate dikaryotic mycelium. The formation of an appressorium is crucial for penetration, where the production of lytic enzymes and the mechanical processes of pressure, probably play an important role. In this case the fungus locally degrades the cell wall of the epidermis, permitting penetration and a systemic invasion mainly affecting the undifferentiated reproductive organs, either male or female, of the plant, where the production of teliospores at the time of flowering, are manifested as carbonaceous masses of black coloration on the ears and corn cobs, forming what is commonly known as sori or galls (Figure 3). These structures are bare, unlike common smut caused by
The complete genome sequence of
2.1.2. Characteristics of the disease
The disease caused by
It can be seen that anthocyanin accumulates in stalks, together with the presence of chlorotic spots in the leaves. During colonization an increase of 30% of the total content of auxins in the inflorescences, and a significant accumulation of reactive oxygen species, occurs [4, 11, 14].
The development of the disease is favored when soil moisture is 15–25%, at a temperature of 23–30 °C, with low water potential – the latter has an effect on the transition of basidiospores to hyphae facilitating the fusion of compatible strains, leading to increased disease severity. N utritional aspects are also important: nitrogen deficiency increases infection, with a lower incidence rate being identified in clay soils than sandy soils [3, 10, 11]. H ead smut is not considered as devastating a disease, but still causes severe losses in the crop yields of maize [15–18].
The report for the first specimen was made in 1875 by Kühn, who received the original strain found in Egypt by Dr. Reil in 1868 [19], however, the disease now has a worldwide distribution, especially where maize crops are extensively practiced, such as Europe, North, Central, and South America, Africa, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, western India, and Palestine, among other countries [7, 20–23].
2.1.3. Pathogenicity factors
During infection and colonization of
The growth of filamentous hyphae in epidermal cells of root, apices, and young tassels of maize, show that the hyphae are mainly in the intercellular spaces and between adjacent epidermal cells, exhibiting no damage to the cell wall of the host, although hyphae are attached to the host. For this plant pathogen, considered biotrophic, intracellular growth is a useful strategy to damage and avoid the response of plant defenses [25].
Phytopathogenic fungi have different mechanisms that allow them to penetrate and colonize their hosts. One involves the production, and synergistic action, of extracellular hydrolytic enzymes that degrade the different polymers constituting the cell wall of the plant tissues [26]. The genome sequence of
2.1.4. Strategies for disease control
Because
Genetic resistance as an alternative disease control method may be more feasible and economical so development is underway on tolerant maize hybrids with high yields [21]. It has been observed that the use of resistant hybrids to disease in one year may make the next crop susceptible. Crop rotation for legumes, care and cleaning of agricultural machinery, and humidity control, can help reduce the incidence of the disease [35–37].
In recent years, scientists have been looking for new forms of control that also need to be environmentally friendly. One such case is the use of biological controls which represent an alternative for the management of the disease, reducing the use of chemical fungicides [38, 39]. In this respect Mercado-Flores et al. in 2014 applied a native strain of
2.2. Stenocarpella maydis
2.2.1. General characteristics
W hite rot of stalk and corn cob is a disease caused by the ascomycete
Natural infection of
The incidence of infected maize by this phytopathogen in the field may range from 1 to 2% or as high as 75 to 80%. This fungus has a worldwide distribution but is mainly found in Guatemala, El Salvador, Belize, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, Asia, and the United States. In the United States this pathogen is the most important causing maize rot [45].
A sexual stage for this ascomycete has not been described. In the laboratory it can be maintained in solid media growing in filamentous form, when the growth is young, producing colonies which initially appear white, and then take on a green coloration with the production of metabolites (Figure 7). In submerged culture, the growth is in pellet form and on natural supports is in mycelial form [51].
2.2.2. Pathogenicity factors
Pathogenicity factors have not been described for this fungus; however, the effect of this ascomycete on the plant must be associated with the production of extracellular enzymes that macerate tissue allowing colonization, as already described for other fungi [26, 44].
2.2.3. Control of pathogen
Control of white rot on the stalk and corncob is made by agronomic practices and the use of resistant varieties; either method alter or interrupt the life cycle of the pathogen. There are resistant corn varieties on the market, however, the disease can develop in any hybrid if spore levels are high and climatic conditions are found to favor infection. Proper crop rotation and elimination of infected crop residues can help to reduce the primary inoculum [42].
Another alternative treatment is the application of fungicides, however, the use of these compounds has been reduced due to their high toxicity. In this case, biological control has been an attractive option forming a component of a system of integrated management of disease, consequential t o the decreased use of chemical compounds [38]. The biological control of
It is also important that in fields with significant levels of rot, corn must be harvested as soon as possible and dried below 15.5% moisture, to prevent contamination and mycotoxin production. The corn should be kept in installations that regularly allow grain aeration [43].
2.3. Biotechnological applications of S. reilianum and S. maydis
These phytopathogens have been considered of great importance due to the damage they cause crops; however, as they penetrate and colonize their hosts, enzymes which they produce should have attractive features for other applications. It has been determined that plant pathogenic fungi have a larger number of genes coding for these enzymes than fungi of industrial importance. The discovery of new enzymatic activities is very important for the development of efficient processes which depolymerize lignocellulosic materials used for obtaining bioproducts and biofuels [26].
S. maydis is capable of producing hydrolytic enzymes such as cellulases, xylanases, and acid protease, into solid and liquid fermentation with different synthetic culture media, where it produces up to two isoforms of either xylanases or cellulases. When it was cultivated using biodegradable supports, it showed three isoforms of xylanases. The most interesting finding is that the fungus produced xylanolytic enzyme extracts free from cellulase activity [51]. These might be used in the paper industry facilitating the release of lignin from paper pulp, thereby reducing the use of chlorine as a bleaching agent, and avoid the degradation of cellulose.
References
- 1.
Bensch M, Staden J. Ultrastructural histopathology of infection and colonization of maize by Stenocarpella maydis (=Diplodia maydis ).J Phytopathol . 1992; 136: 312-318. DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0434.1992.tb01313.x - 2.
Martinez C, Roux C, Dargent R. The biological cycle of Sporisorium reilianum f. sp.zeae : An overview using microscopy.Mycologia . 2002; 94: 505-514. DOI: 10.2307/3761784 - 3.
Schirawski J, Mannhaupt G, Münch K, Brefort T, Schipper K, Doehlmann G, Di Stasio M, Rössel N, Mendoza-Mendoza A, Pester D, Müller O, Winterberg B, Meyer E, Ghereeb H, Wollenberg T, Münsterkötte M, Wong P, Walter M, Stukenbrock E, Güldener U, Kahmann R. Pathogenicity determinants in smut fungi revealed by genome comparison. Science . 2010; 330: 1546–1548. DOI: 10.1126/science.1195330 - 4.
Ghareeb H, Becker A, Iven T, Feussner I, Schirawski J. Sporisorium reilianum infection changes inflorescence and branching architectures of maize.Plant Physiology . 2011; 156: 2037-2052. DOI: 10.1104/pp.111.179499 - 5.
Frederiksen R. Head smuts of corn and sorghum. In: Proceedings, 32nd Annual corn and Sorghum Research Conference; Washington DC 1977; pp. 89–105 - 6.
Prom L, Perumal R, Erpelding J, Montes N, Odvody G, Greenwald C, Jin Z, Frederiksen R, Magill C. Virulence and molecular genotyping studies of Sporisorium reilianum isolates in sorghum.Plant dis. 2011; 95: 523–529. DOI: 10.1094/PDIS-10-10-0720 - 7.
Zhang S, Gardiner J, Xiao Y. Floral transition in maize infected with Sporisorium reilianum disrupts compatibility with this biotrophic fungal pathogen.Planta . 2013; 237: 1251-1266. DOI: 10.1007/s00425-013-1841-0 - 8.
Zuther K, Kahnt J, Utermark J, Imkampe J, Uhse S, Schirawski J. Host specificity of Sporisorium reilianum is tightly linked to generation of the phytoalexin luteolinidin bySorghum bicolor .Mol Plant Microbe In . 2012; 25: 1230-1237. DOI: 10.1094/MPMI-12-11-0314 - 9.
Poloni A, Schirawski J. Host specificity in Sporisorium reilianum is determined by distinct mechanisms in maize and sorghum.Mol Plant Pathol . 2015; 1-14. DOI: 10.1111/mpp.12326 - 10.
Matyac C, Kommedahl T. Factors affecting the development of head smut caused by Sphacelotheca reiliana on corn.Phytopathology . 1985; 75:577-581. DOI: 10.1094/Phyto-75-577 - 11.
Martinez C, Roux C, Jauneau A, Dargent R. Effect of water potential on the development of an haploid strain of Sporisorium reilianum F. sp.zeae .Plant soil . 2003; 251: 65-71. DOI: 10.1023/A:1022942627449 - 12.
Stoll M, Piepenbring M, Begerow D, Oberwinkler F. Molecular phylogeny of Ustilago andSporisorium species (Basidiomycota, Ustilaginales) based on Internal Transcribed Spacer (ITS) Sequences.Can J Bot . 2003; 81: 976-984. DOI: 10.1139/B03-094 - 13.
Schirawski J, Heinze B, Wagenknecht M, Kahmann R. Mating type loci of Sporisorium reilianum : Novel pattern with three and multiple b specificities.Eukaryotic Cell . 2005; 4: 1317-1327. DOI: 10.1128/EC.4.8.1317-1327.2005 - 14.
Williams-alanís H, Pecina-Quintero V, Montes-García N, Arcos-Cavazos G, Zavala-García F, Gámez-Vázquez J. Incidencia de carbón de la panoja Sporisorium reilianum (Kühn) Langdon y Fullerton En Híbridos de Sorgo [Sorghum Bicolor (L.) Moench] para grano. Rev Mex Fitopatol. 2009; 27: 36-44. - 15.
Stienstra W, Kommedahl E, Stromberg E, Matyac C, Windels C, Morgan F. Suppression of corn head smut with seed and soil treatments. Plant Dis . 1985; 69: 301-302. DOI: 10.1094/PD-69-301 - 16.
Pradhanang P, Ghimire S. Fungicide management of maize head smut ( Sphacelotheca reiliana ) by seed treatment.Trop Agric . 1996; 73: 325-328. - 17.
Njuguna J. Potential for control of head smut caused by Sphacelotheca reiliana in CIMMYT maize germplasm. Sixth East. South. Africa Reg. Maize Conf. NARC Muguga, Nairobi, Kenya. 1999; pp. 67-68. - 18.
Wright P, Fullerton R, Koolaard J. Fungicide control of head smut ( Sporisorium reilianum ) of sweetcorn (Zea mays ).New Zeal J Crop Hort Sci . 2006; 34: 23-26. DOI:10.1080/01140671.2006.9514383 - 19.
Halisky P. Head smut of sorghum, sudan grass, and corn, caused by Sphacelotheca reiliana (Kühn) Clint.Hilgardia . 1963; 34:287-304. DOI:10.3733/hilg.v34n08p287 - 20.
Martínez R, Ledesma M. Control químico del carbón de la espiga Sphacelotheca reiliana (Kühn) Clint., del maíz, en el valle de Zapopan, Jalisco.Rev Mex Fitopatol . 1990; 8: 68-70. - 21.
Aquino-Martínez J, Sánchez-Flores A, González-Huerta A, Sánchez-Pale J. Resistance of varieties and hybrids of corn ( Zea mays ) toSporisorium reilianum and grain yield.Rev Mex Fitopatol . 2011; 29: 39-49. - 22.
Little C, Perumal R, Tesso T, Prom L, Odvody G, Magill C. Sorghum pathology and biotechnology. A fungal disease perspective : Part I. Grain Mold, Head Smut, and Ergot. Eur J Plant Sci Biotechnol . 2012; 6: 10–30. - 23.
Quezada A, De León C, Hernández A, Nava C. Evaluation of inoculation methods on maize seeds with Sporisorium reilianum f. sp. zeae (Kühn) Langdon & Fullerton.Rev Mex Fitopatol . 2014; 31: 80-90. - 24.
Martinez C, Roux C, Dargent R. Biotrophic development of Sporisorium reilianum f. sp.zeae in vegetative shoot apex of maize.Phytopathology . 1999; 89: 247-253. DOI: 10.1094/PHYTO.1999.89.3.247 - 25.
Zhang S, Xiao Y, Zhao J, Wang F, Zheng Y. Zeae in maize. Mol Genet Genom . 2013; 288: 21-37. DOI: 10.1007/s00438-012-0727-3 - 26.
King B, Waxman K, Nenni N, Walker L, Bergstrom G, Gibson D. Arsenal of plant cell wall degrading enzymes reflects host preference among plant pathogenic fungi. Biotechnol Biofuels . 2011; 4: 1-14. DOI: 10.1186/1754-6834-4-4 - 27.
Wollenberg T, Schirawski J. Comparative genomics of plant fungal pathogens: The Ustilago-Sporisorium Paradigm.PLoS Pathog . 2014; 10: 1-3. DOI: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1004218 - 28.
Mandujano-González V, Arana-Cuenca A, Anducho-Reyes M, Téllez-Jurado A, González-Becerra A, Mercado-Flores Y. Biochemical study of the extracellular aspartyl protease Eap1 from the phytopathogen fungus Sporisorium reilianum .Protein Expr Purif . 2013; 92: 214-222. DOI: 10.1016/j.pep.2013.10.003 - 29.
Álvarez-Cervantes J, Hernández-Domínguez E, Arana-Cuenca A, Díaz-Godínez G, Mercado-Flores Y. Purification and characterization of xylanase SRXL1 from Sporisorium reilianum grown in submerged and solid-state fermentation.BioResources . 2013; 84: 5309-5318. DOI: 10.15376/biores.8.4.5309-5318 - 30.
Stromberg E, Kommedahl T, Stienstra W, Windels C, Matyac C. Evaluation of maize hybrids and inbreds for resistance to Sphacelotheca reiliana .Phytopathology . 1982; 72: 943 - 31.
Pataky JK. Smuts. In: Compendium of maize diseases (White D.G., ed). 3rd. Edition. APS Press. Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA. 33-35 pp. - 32.
Fullerton RA. A smutty story. Grower . 2002; 57: 44-52. - 33.
Pelmus V, Pelmus A. Aspects of prevention and control of Sorosporium holci-sorghi f.zeae by chemical seed treatment. 1988; 16: 253-258. - 34.
Godwin J, Anthony V, Clough M, Godfrey C. ICI A 5504: a novel broad spectrum, systemic ß-methoxyacrylate fungicide. In, Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference, Pests and Diseases. 1992, pp. 435-443. - 35.
Mack J, Baggettt R, Koepsell A, Effects of cultural practices on the incidence of head smut in sweet corn. HortScience . 1984; 19: 77–78. - 36.
Pérez P, Bobadilla M, Velásquez G, Zacatenco A, Espinoza A. Logros y aportaciones de la investigación en maíz de riego en el Valle de Mezquital, Hidalgo. En: Memorias de veinte años de investigación y desarrollo tecnológico . Campo Exptl. Pachuca, Hidalgo, INIFAP, Pachuca, México. 2006, p p. 55-65. - 37.
Mercado-Flores Y, Cárdenas-Álvarez O, Rojas-Olvera V, Pérez-Camarillo P, Leyva-Mir G, Anducho-Reyes A. Application of Bacillus subtilis in the biological control of the phytopathogenic fungusSporisorium reilianum .Biol Control . 2014; 76: 36-40. DOI:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2014.04.011 - 38.
Spadaro D, Gullino L. State of the art and future prospects of biological control of postharvest fruit diseases. Int J. Food Microbiol . 2004; 91: 185–194. DOI:10.1016/S0168-1605(03)00380-5 - 39.
Compant S, Duffy B, Nowak J, Clément C, Barka A. Use of plant growth promoting bacteria for biocontrol of plant disease: principles, mechanisms of action, and future prospects. Appl Environ Microbiol . 2005; 71: 4951-4959. DOI: 10.1128/AEM.71.9.4951-4959.2005 - 40.
McGee C. Maize Diseases: A Reference Source for Seed Technologists. The American Phytopatological Society, St. Paul, MN, USA, 1988. - 41.
De León C. Enfermedades del maíz. Una guía para su identificación en el campo. Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT). 2004, pp. 446-447. - 42.
Lips P, Mills D. Corn ear rots: Diplodia andGibberella . CORN. News Letter. Ohio State Univ. Extension, 2004, 32: 3 p. - 43.
Vincelli, P. (1997). Ear Rot of Corn Caused by Stenocarpella maydis ﴾= Diplodia maydis﴿. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture, University of Kentucky, USA. - 44.
Xia Z, Wu H, Achar PN. Infection and Ultrastructure of Conidia and Pycnidia of Stenocarpella maydis in Maize.J Food Prot . 2011; 4: 676-680. DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-10-347 - 45.
Koehler B. Corn ear rot in Illinois. University of Illinois. Agricultural Experiment Station. Bull. 639. 1959. 5-6 p. - 46.
Blaney J, Mannion E, Tuder D, McKenzie A. Examination of Diplodia maydis infected maize for toxicity to chicken and cattle. Aust Vet J . 1981; 57: 196–197. DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-0813.1981.tb00513.x - 47.
Kellerman S, Rabie J, Van Der Westhuizen A, Kriek J, Prozesky L. Induction of diplodiosis: A neuromyco-toxicosis in domestic ruminants with cultures of indigenous and exotic isolates of Diplodia maydis. Ondersteport J Vet Res . 1985; 52: 35–42. - 48.
Rabie J, Kellerman S, Kriek P, Van der Weshuizen C, De Wet J. Toxicity of Diplodia maydis in farm and laboratory animals. Food Chem Toxicol . 1985; 23: 349–353. DOI:10.1016/0278-6915(85)90070-5 - 49.
Rahman F, Rao K, Achar N. Effect of Diplodiatoxin ( Sternocarpella maydis ) on some enzymatic profiles in male and female rats.Ecotoxicol Environ Saf . 2002; 52; 267–272. DOI:10.1006/eesa.2002.2200 - 50.
Rogers D, Cannistra C, Gloer B, Wicklow T. Diplodiatoxin, chaetoglobosins, and diplonine associated with a field outbreak of Stenocarpella ear rot in Illinois.Mycotoxin Res . 2014; 30: 61–70. DOI: 10.1007/s12550-014-0188-0 - 51.
Hernández-Domínguez M, Rios-Latorre A, Álvarez-Cervantes J, Loera-Corral O, Román-Gutiérrez D, Díaz-Godínez G, Mercado-Flores Y. Xylanases, cellulases, and acid protease produced by Stenocarpella maydis grown in solid-state and submerged fermentation.BioResources . 2014; 9: 2341-2348. DOI: 10.15376/biores.9.2.2341-2358 - 52.
Bressan W. Biological control of maize seed pathogenic fungi by use of actinomycetes. BioControl . 2003; 48: 233–240. DOI: 10.1023/A:1022673226324 - 53.
Bressan W, Figueiredo F. Biological control of Stenocarpella maydis in maize seed with antagonistic streptomyces sp. isolates.J. phytopathol . 2005; 153: 623-626. DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0434.2005.01014.x - 54.
Petatán-Sagahón I, Anducho-Reyes A, Silva-Rojas V, Arana-Cuenca A, Téllez-Jurado A, Cárdenas-Álvarez O, Mercado-Flores Y. Isolation of bacteria with antifungal activity against the phytopathogenic fungi Stenocarpella maydis and Stenocarpella macrospora. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2011; 12: 5522-5537. DOI: 10.3390/ijms12095522