In Vitro Approbation of Microbial Preparations to Shield Fruit Crops from Fire Blight: Physio-Biochemical Parameters
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Results
2.1. Influence of Biopreparations on the Physiological Parameters of Apple and Pear Micro-Shoots In Vitro
2.2. Influence of Biopreparations on the Biochemical Parameters of Apple and Pear Micro-Shoots In Vitro
3. Discussion
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Research Materials
4.2. Obtaining In Vitro Cultures of Aseptic Shoots
4.3. Determination of Chlorophyll Pigments’ Content
4.4. Determination of Antioxidant Enzyme Activity
4.5. Statistical Data Processing
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Nischwitz, C.; Hubbel, M.A. UTAH Pest Fact Sheet: Fire Blight of Pears and Apples; Utah State University Extension and Utah Plant Pest Diagnostic Laboratory: Logan, UT, USA, 2018; p. 3. [Google Scholar]
- Sundin, G.W. Managing Fire Blight: New Lessons Learned From the Use of Kasumin for Blossom Blight and Apogee for Shoot Blight Control. N. Y. Fruit Q. 2014, 22, 9–13. [Google Scholar]
- Maltseva, E.R.; Zharmukhamedova, G.A.; Jumanova, Z.K.; Naizabayeva, D.A.; Berdygulova, Z.A.; Dmitriyeva, K.A.; Soltanbekov, S.S.; Argynbayeva, A.M.; Skiba, Y.A.; Malakhova, N.P.; et al. Assessment of Fire Blight Introduction in the Wild Apple Forests of Kazakhstan. Biodiversity 2022, 23, 123–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maltseva, E.R.; Zharmukhamedova, G.A.; Jumanova, Z.K.; Naizabayeva, D.A.; Berdygulova, Z.A.; Dmitriyeva, K.A.; Tezekbayeva, B.; Khassein, A.; Skiba, Y.A.; Malakhova, N.P.; et al. Fire Blight Cases in Almaty Region of Kazakhstan in the Proximity of Wild Apple Distribution Area. J. Plant Pathol. 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koski, R.D.; Jacobi, W.R. Fire Blight; Gardening Series|Diseases; Colorado State University Extension: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2014; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Jock, S.; Wensing, A.; Pulawska, J.; Drenova, N.; Dreo, T.; Geider, K. Molecular Analyses of Erwinia Amylovora Strains Isolated in Russia, Poland, Slovenia and Austria Describing Further Spread of Fire Blight in Europe. Microbiol. Res. 2013, 168, 447–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Umiraliyeva, Z.Z.; Kopzhassarov, B.K.; Jaimurzina, A.A.; Niyazbekov, Z.B.; Issenova, G.Z.; Tursunova, A.K.; Berganayeva, G.E. Epidemiology of Fire Blight in Fruit Crops in Kazakhstan. AGRIVITA J. Agric. Sci. 2021, 43, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Psallidas, P.G.; Tsiantos, J. Chemical Control of Fire Blight. In Fire Blight: The Disease and Its Causative Agent, Erwinia Amylovora; Vanneste, J.L., Ed.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2000; pp. 199–234. ISBN 978-0-85199-294-5. [Google Scholar]
- Sundin, G.W.; Wang, N. Antibiotic Resistance in Plant-Pathogenic Bacteria. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2018, 56, 161–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tancos, K.A.; Villani, S.; Kuehne, S.; Borejsza-Wysocka, E.; Breth, D.; Carol, J.; Aldwinckle, H.S.; Cox, K.D. Prevalence of Streptomycin-Resistant Erwinia amylovora in New York Apple Orchards. Plant Dis. 2016, 100, 802–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mechan Llontop, M.E.; Hurley, K.; Tian, L.; Bernal Galeano, V.A.; Wildschutte, H.K.; Marine, S.C.; Yoder, K.S.; Vinatzer, B.A. Exploring Rain as Source of Biological Control Agents for Fire Blight on Apple. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ishimaru, C.A.; Klos, E.J.; Brubaker, R.R. Multiple Antibiotic Production by Erwinia Herbicola. Phytopathology 1988, 78, 746–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilson, M.; Lindow, S.E. Relationship of Total Viable and Culturable Cells in Epiphytic Populations of Pseudomonas Syringae. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1992, 58, 3908–3913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Loncaric, I.; Donat, C.; Antlinger, B.; Oberlerchner, J.T.; Heissenberger, B.; Moosbeckhofer, R. Strain-specific Detection of Two Aureobasidium pullulans Strains, Fungal Biocontrol Agents of Fire Blight by New, Developed multiplex-PCR. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2008, 104, 1433–1441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jaffuel, G.; Imperiali, N.; Shelby, K.; Campos-Herrera, R.; Geisert, R.; Maurhofer, M.; Loper, J.; Keel, C.; Turlings, T.C.J.; Hibbard, B.E. Protecting Maize from Rootworm Damage with the Combined Application of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi, Pseudomonas Bacteria and Entomopathogenic Nematodes. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 3127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jaffuel, G.; Sbaiti, I.; Turlings, T.C.J. Encapsulated Entomopathogenic Nematodes Can Protect Maize Plants from Diabrotica balteata Larvae. Insects 2020, 11, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durán, P.; Thiergart, T.; Garrido-Oter, R.; Agler, M.; Kemen, E.; Schulze-Lefert, P.; Hacquard, S. Microbial Interkingdom Interactions in Roots Promote Arabidopsis Survival. Cell 2018, 175, 973–983.e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doolotkeldieva, T.; Bobusheva, S. Fire Blight Disease Caused by Erwinia amylovora on Rosaceae Plants in Kyrgyzstan and Biological Agents to Control This Disease. Adv. Microbiol. 2016, 6, 831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arafat, K.H.; Hanan, S.A.; Rabab, A.-E.-A.M. Antibacterial Activity of Antagonistic Bacteria and Plant Extract on Erwinia amylovora the Pathogen of Fire Blight Disease in Egypt. Int. J. Phytopathol. 2015, 4, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Özaktan, H.; Bora, T. Biological Control of Fire Blight in Pear Orchards with a Formulation of Pantoea agglomerans Strain Eh 24. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2004, 35, 224–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Umiraliyeva, Z.Z.; Kopzhassarov, B.K.; Jaimurzina, A.A.; Beknazarova, Z.B. Integrated System for Protecting Apple Trees From Fire Blight in The Conditions of The South-East of Kazakhstan. Izdenister Natigeler 2022, 1, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iqbal, Z.; Iqbal, M.S.; Hashem, A.; Abd_Allah, E.F.; Ansari, M.I. Plant Defense Responses to Biotic Stress and Its Interplay With Fluctuating Dark/Light Conditions. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 631810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saddique, M.; Kamran, M.; Shahbaz, M. Chapter 4—Differential Responses of Plants to Biotic Stress and the Role of Metabolites. In Plant Metabolites and Regulation Under Environmental Stress; Ahmad, P., Ahanger, M.A., Singh, V.P., Tripathi, D.K., Alam, P., Alyemeni, M.N., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 69–87. ISBN 978-0-12-812689-9. [Google Scholar]
- Foyer, C.H.; Noctor, G. Oxidant and Antioxidant Signalling in Plants: A Re-Evaluation of the Concept of Oxidative Stress in a Physiological Context. Plant Cell Environ. 2005, 28, 1056–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omirbekova, N.; Zhussupova, A.; Askanbayeva, B.; Egiztayeva, B.; Zhunusbayeva, Z. Study of Storage Proteins in Endosperm and Antioxidant Enzymes Activity of Soft Wheat and Brachypodium distachyon Infected by Puccinia recondita; Curran Associates, Inc.: Albena, Bulgaria, 2016; Volume 16, p. 767. [Google Scholar]
- Sharma, A.; Pandey, H.; Nampoothiri Devadas, V.A.S.; Kartha, B.D.; Jha, R. Production of, Factors Affecting, Gene Regulations, and Challenges in Tissue Cultured Plant through Soilless Culture. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2023, 71, 5804–5811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dinev, T.; Rusenova, N.; Velichkova, K.; Beev, G. Antimicrobial Potential of Eleven Lacticaseibacillus paracasei Strains Isolated from Mountain Anthills. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 2022, 28, 949–955. [Google Scholar]
- Xu, J.; Chen, X.; Song, J.; Wang, C.; Xu, W.; Tan, H.; Suo, H. Antibacterial Activity and Mechanism of Cell-Free Supernatants of Lacticaseibacillus paracasei against Propionibacterium acnes. Microb. Pathog. 2024, 189, 106598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sadanov, A.K.; Kuldybayev, N.; Ismailova, E.; Shemshura, O.; Molzhigitova, A.; Turlybayeva, Z.; Elubayeva, A.; Baimakhanova, G.; Baimakhanova, B. Screening of Antagonistic Activity of Lactic Acid Bacteria Strains against Erwinia amylovora. Int. Sci. J. Sci. Innov. 2023, 162–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiong, L.; Zhu, J.-K. Molecular and Genetic Aspects of Plant Responses to Osmotic Stress. Plant Cell Environ. 2002, 25, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zandi, P.; Schnug, E. Reactive Oxygen Species, Antioxidant Responses and Implications from a Microbial Modulation Perspective. Biology 2022, 11, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, X.H.; Scholz, R.; Borriss, M.; Junge, H.; Mögel, G.; Kunz, S.; Borriss, R. Difficidin and Bacilysin Produced by Plant-Associated Bacillus amyloliquefaciens Are Efficient in Controlling Fire Blight Disease. J. Biotechnol. 2009, 140, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shemshura, O.; Alimzhanova, M.; Ismailova, E.; Molzhigitova, A.; Daugaliyeva, S.; Sadanov, A. Antagonistic Activity and Mechanism of a Novel Bacillus amyloliquefaciens MB40 Strain against Fire Blight. J. Plant Pathol. 2020, 102, 825–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ait Bahadou, S.; Ouijja, A.; Karfach, A.; Tahiri, A.; Lahlali, R. New Potential Bacterial Antagonists for the Biocontrol of Fire Blight Disease (Erwinia amylovora) in Morocco. Microb. Pathog. 2018, 117, 7–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bonaterra, A.; Cabrefiga, J.; Mora, I.; RosellÃ3, G.; FrancÃs, J.; Montesinos, E. Gram-Positive Bacteria Producing Antimicrobial Peptides as Efficient Biocontrol Agents of Fire Blight. In Proceedings of the Acta Horticulturae; International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS), Leuven, Belgium, 29 October 2014; pp. 117–122. [Google Scholar]
- Lahlali, R.; Aksissou, W.; Lyousfi, N.; Ezrari, S.; Blenzar, A.; Tahiri, A.; Ennahli, S.; Hrustić, J.; MacLean, D.; Amiri, S. Biocontrol Activity and Putative Mechanism of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (SF14 and SP10), Alcaligenes faecalis ACBC1, and Pantoea agglomerans ACBP1 against Brown Rot Disease of Fruit. Microb. Pathog. 2020, 139, 103914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Frikha-Gargouri, O.; Ben Abdallah, D. Multiple Factor Analysis of Genetic and Metabolite Profiles as an Improved Strategy for Potential Bacillus Biocontrol Agent Selection to Control Crown Gall and Fire Blight Diseases. Biol. Control 2023, 185, 105294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tafifet, L.; Raio, A.; Holeva, M.C.; Dikhai, R.; Kouskoussa, C.O.; Cesbron, S.; Krimi, Z. Molecular Characterization of Algerian Erwinia amylovora Strains by VNTR Analysis and Biocontrol Efficacy of Bacillus spp. and Pseudomonas brassicacearum Antagonists. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2020, 156, 867–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dagher, F.; Nickzad, A.; Zheng, J.; Hoffmann, M.; Déziel, E. Characterization of the Biocontrol Activity of Three Bacterial Isolates against the Phytopathogen Erwinia amylovora. Microbiol. Open 2021, 10, e1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Choi, D.H.; Choi, H.J.; Kim, Y.J.; Lim, Y.-J.; Lee, I.; Park, D.H. Screening of Bacterial Antagonists to Develop an Effective Cocktail against Erwinia amylovora. Res. Plant Dis. 2022, 28, 152–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butt, H.; Bastas, K.K. Antagonistic Activity of Bacillus spp. Against Fire Blight Disease In Vitro and In Planta. Turk. J. Agric.— Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 9, 2486–2492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medhioub, I.; Cheffi, M.; Tounsi, S.; Triki, M.A. Study of Bacillus velezensis OEE1 Potentialities in the Biocontrol against Erwinia amylovora, Causal Agent of Fire Blight Disease of Rosaceous Plants. Biol. Control 2022, 167, 104842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iwaniuk, P.; Lozowicka, B. Biochemical Compounds and Stress Markers in Lettuce upon Exposure to Pathogenic Botrytis cinerea and Fungicides Inhibiting Oxidative Phosphorylation. Planta 2022, 255, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hashimoto, H.; Uragami, C.; Cogdell, R.J. Carotenoids and Photosynthesis. In Carotenoids in Nature: Biosynthesis, Regulation and Function; Stange, C., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 111–139. ISBN 978-3-319-39126-7. [Google Scholar]
- Shakir, S.K.; Irfan, S.; Akhtar, B.; Rehman, S.u.; Daud, M.K.; Taimur, N.; Azizullah, A. Pesticide-Induced Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Responses in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) Seedlings. Ecotoxicology 2018, 27, 919–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, J.; Kim, S.; Jung, H.; Koo, B.-K.; Han, J.A.; Lee, H.-S. Exploiting Bacterial Genera as Biocontrol Agents: Mechanisms, Interactions and Applications in Sustainable Agriculture. J. Plant Biol. 2023, 66, 485–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, Q.; Bao, Z.; Zhu, Z.; Ying, Q.; Qian, Q. Effects of Different Treatments of Salicylic Acid on Heat Tolerance, Chlorophyll Fluorescence, and Antioxidant Enzyme Activity in Seedlings of Cucumis sativa L. Plant Growth Regul. 2006, 48, 127–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anjum, N.A.; Sharma, P.; Gill, S.S.; Hasanuzzaman, M.; Khan, E.A.; Kachhap, K.; Mohamed, A.A.; Thangavel, P.; Devi, G.D.; Vasudhevan, P.; et al. Catalase and Ascorbate Peroxidase—Representative H2O2-Detoxifying Heme Enzymes in Plants. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 19002–19029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baimuhametova, E.A.; Typova, R.M.; Kuluev, B.R. Glutathione and Glutathione-s-Transferase: Key Components of the Antioxidant Protection System of Plant. Research 2016, 8, 311–322. [Google Scholar]
- Kuźniak, E.; Skłodowska, M. Ascorbate, Glutathione and Related Enzymes in Chloroplasts of Tomato Leaves Infected by Botrytis cinerea. Plant Sci. 2001, 160, 723–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Alscher, R.G.; Erturk, N.; Heath, L.S. Role of Superoxide Dismutases (SODs) in Controlling Oxidative Stress in Plants. J. Exp. Bot. 2002, 53, 1331–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hashim, A.M.; Alharbi, B.M.; Abdulmajeed, A.M.; Elkelish, A.; Hozzein, W.N.; Hassan, H.M. Oxidative Stress Responses of Some Endemic Plants to High Altitudes by Intensifying Antioxidants and Secondary Metabolites Content. Plants 2020, 9, 869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hasanuzzaman, M.; Fujita, M. Plant Oxidative Stress: Biology, Physiology and Mitigation. Plants 2022, 11, 1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gill, S.S.; Tuteja, N. Polyamines and Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Plants. Plant Signal. Behav. 2010, 5, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gavrilenko, V.; Ladygina, M.; Khandobina, L. Largeworkshop on Plant Physiology. Photosynthesis. Respiration; Higher School: Moscow, Russia, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Nurzhanova, A.; Pidlisnyuk, V.; Berzhanova, R.; Nurmagambetova, A.S.; Terletskaya, N.; Omirbekova, N.; Berkinbayev, G.; Mamirova, A. PGPR-Driven Phytoremediation and Physiobiochemical Response of Miscanthus × giganteus to Stress Induced by the Trace Elements. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 96098–96113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bradford, M.M. A Rapid and Sensitive Method for the Quantitation of Microgram Quantities of Protein Utilizing the Principle of Protein-Dye Binding. Anal. Biochem. 1976, 72, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swinehart, D.F. The Beer-Lambert Law. J. Chem. Educ. 1962, 39, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fazlieva, E.R.; Kiseleva, I.S.; Zhuikova, T.V. Antioxidant Activity in the Leaves of Melilotus albus and Trifolium medium from Man-Made Disturbed Habitats in the Middle Urals under the Influence of Copper. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 2012, 59, 333–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parameter | Cv. | BP | Ctrl | Time of Seed Inoculation, min | p-Value (n = 9) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
30 | % to Ctrl | 60 | % to Ctrl | ||||||
Chl a | M. sieversii cv. KG10 | No. 1 | 20.3 ± 0.77 | − | 19.2 ± 0.73 | − | 19.1 ± 0.75 | − | 0.178 |
No. 2 | − | 19.6 ± 0.96 | − | 20.3 ± 0.68 | − | 0.563 | |||
P. pyraster cv. Wild | No. 1 | 15.1 ± 2.11 | b | 12.3 ± 0.99 b | 81.6 | 20.1 ± 0.97 a | 133 | <0.01 | |
No. 2 | b | 16.4 ± 0.07 ab | 108 | 18.6 ± 0.13 a | 123 | <0.05 | |||
Chl b | M. sieversii cv. KG10 | No. 1 | 9.67 ± 0.63 | − | 8.89 ± 0.68 | − | 8.92 ± 0.37 | − | 0.245 |
No. 2 | − | 10.2 ± 0.58 | − | 10.4 ± 0.31 | − | 0.266 | |||
P. pyraster cv. Wild | No. 1 | 6.34 ± 0.76 | b | 4.64 ± 0.32 b | 73.2 | 10.2 ± 0.90 a | 160 | <0.001 | |
No. 2 | c | 7.59 ± 0.05 b | 120 | 8.81 ± 0.06 a | 139 | <0.01 | |||
Car | M. sieversii cv. KG10 | No. 1 | 5.10 ± 0.10 | ab | 5.12 ± 0.04 a | 100 | 4.92 ± 0.08 b | 96.4 | <0.05 |
No. 2 | a | 4.86 ± 0.21 a | 95.3 | 4.41 ± 0.05 b | 86.5 | <0.01 | |||
P. pyraster cv. Wild | No. 1 | 5.31 ± 0.08 | a | 3.86 ± 0.38 c | 72.7 | 5.06 ± 0.10 b | 95.3 | <0.001 | |
No. 2 | − | 5.09 ± 0.11 | − | 5.38 ± 0.50 | − | 0.351 | |||
Chl a/b | M. sieversii cv. KG10 | No. 1 | 2.10 ± 0.06 | − | 2.16 ± 0.08 | − | 2.14 ± 0.01 | − | 0.441 |
No. 2 | − | 5.09 ± 0.11 | − | 5.38 ± 0.50 | − | 0.185 | |||
P. pyraster cv. Wild | No. 1 | 2.38 ± 0.05 | b | 2.71 ± 0.05 a | 114 | 2.08 ± 0.20 b | 87.5 | <0.01 | |
No. 2 | a | 2.16 ± 0.02 ab | 90.7 | 2.12 ± 0.02 b | 88.9 | <0.05 | |||
Chl (a+b)/Car | M. sieversii cv. KG10 | No. 1 | 5.88 ± 0.39 | − | 5.49 ± 0.33 | − | 5.70 ± 0.33 | − | 0.441 |
No. 2 | b | 6.16 ± 0.54 ab | 105 | 6.97 ± 0.30 a | 119 | <0.05 | |||
P. pyraster cv. Wild | No. 1 | 4.03 ± 0.47 | b | 4.27 ± 0.03 b | 106 | 5.90 ± 0.59 a | 146 | <0.01 | |
No. 2 | b | 4.71 ± 0.11 ab | 117 | 5.14 ± 0.44 a | 127 | <0.05 |
Parameter | Cv. | BP | Ctrl | Time of Seed Inoculation, min | p-Value (n = 9) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
30 | % to Ctrl | 60 | % to Ctrl | ||||||
Chl a | M. domestica cv. Aport | No. 1 | 17.5 ± 1.76 | b | 18.9 ± 1.85 b | 108 | 23.7 ± 0.09 a | 136 | <0.01 |
No. 2 | b | 22.2 ± 0.31 a | 127 | 21.5 ± 1.29 a | 123 | <0.01 | |||
P. communis cv. Shygys | No. 1 | 16.4 ± 1.40 | a | 14.8 ± 0.56 ab | 89.9 | 12.9 ± 1.54 b | 78.3 | <0.05 | |
No. 2 | ab | 20.3 ± 2.20 a | 124 | 12.8 ± 1.33 b | 78.2 | <0.01 | |||
Chl b | M. domestica cv. Aport | No. 1 | 7.57 ± 0.97 | b | 8.19 ± 0.63 b | 108 | 17.0 ± 0.25 a | 224 | <0.05 |
No. 2 | b | 14.0 ± 1.22 a | s185 | 14.6 ± 1.23 a | 193 | <0.001 | |||
P. communis cv. Shygys | No. 1 | 6.71 ± 0.86 | a | 5.77 ± 0.19 ab | 85.9 | 5.02 ± 0.55 b | 74.8 | <0.05 | |
No. 2 | b | 10.5 ± 1.15 a | 157 | 4.53 ± 0.48 b | 67.4 | <0.001 | |||
Car | M. domestica cv. Aport | No. 1 | 4.59 ± 0.04 | a | 4.53 ± 0.06 a | 98.5 | 2.81 ± 0.05 b | 61.2 | <0.05 |
No. 2 | b | 4.78 ± 0.07 a | 104 | 4.87 ± 0.03 a | 106 | <0.01 | |||
P. communis cv. Shygys | No. 1 | 4.99 ± 0.34 | a | 4.29 ± 0.13 b | 86.0 | 4.06 ± 0.29 b | 81.4 | <0.05 | |
No. 2 | ab | 5.21 ± 0.18 a | 104 | 4.27 ± 0.34 b | 85.5 | <0.05 | |||
Chl a/b | M. domestica cv. Aport | No. 1 | 2.32 ± 0.06 | a | 2.15 ± 0.10 a | 93.0 | 1.40 ± 0.02 b | 60.3 | <0.05 |
No. 2 | a | 1.59 ± 0.12 b | 68.8 | 1.48 ± 0.13 b | 63.7 | <0.05 | |||
P. communis cv. Shygys | No. 1 | 2.46 ± 0.11 | − | 2.56 ± 0.02 | − | 2.56 ± 0.03 | − | 0.411 | |
No. 2 | ab | 2.23 ± 0.30 b | 90.6 | 2.81 ± 0.02 a | 114 | <0.05 | |||
Chl (a+b)/Car | M. domestica cv. Aport | No. 1 | 5.44 ± 0.54 | b | 6.13 ± 0.61 b | 113 | 14.5 ± 0.36 a | 266 | <0.05 |
No. 2 | b | 7.57 ± 0.38 a | 139 | 7.55 ± 0.37 a | 139 | <0.01 | |||
P. communis cv. Shygys | No. 1 | 4.64 ± 0.18 | − | 4.78 ± 0.04 | − | 4.41 ± 0.21 | − | 0.077 | |
No. 2 | b | 5.95 ± 0.85 a | 135 | 4.06 ± 0.11 b | 68.2 | <0.01 |
Parameter | Cv. KG10 | Cv. Aport | % to Resistant | p-Value (n = 9) | Cv. Wild | Cv. Shygys | % to Resistant | p-Value (n = 9) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Resistant | Susceptible | Resistant a | Susceptible | |||||
Protein | 0.20 ± 0.03 b | 0.84 ± 0.02 a | 418 | <0.05 * | 0.46 ± 0.06 b | 0.62 ± 0.05 a | 135 | <0.05 |
APX | 51.9 ± 4.66 a | 9.50 ± 1.20 b | 18.3 | <0.05 * | 26.2 ± 1.54 a | 21.9 ± 1.01 b | 83.8 | <0.05 |
CAT | 6.30 ± 0.77 a | 2.60 ± 0.48 b | 41.2 | <0.01 | 2 003 ± 155 | 1 742 ± 88.5 | − | 0.064 |
GR | 2.70 ± 0.45 a | 1.00 ± 0.05 b | 38.4 | <0.01 | 1.20 ± 0.02 a | 0.60 ± 0.04 b | 54.6 | <0.05 * |
SOD | 4187 ± 97.7 a | 708 ± 28.2 b | 16.9 | <0.05 * | 218 ± 3.86 b | 237 ± 7.67 a | 109 | <0.05 |
Parameter | Cv. | BP | Ctrl | Time of Micro-Shoots’ Inoculation, min | p-Value (n = 9) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
30 | % to Ctrl | 60 | % to Ctrl | ||||||
Protein | M. sieversii cv. KG10 | No. 1 | 0.20 ± 0.03 | − | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 96.5 | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 94.0 | 0.737 |
No. 2 | c | 0.79 ± 0.09 b | 397 | 1.08 ± 0.11 a | 541 | <0.001 | |||
P. pyraster cv. Wild | No. 1 | 0.46 ± 0.06 | b | 0.57 ± 0.05 a | 124 | 0.20 ± 0.01 c | 44.0 | <0.001 | |
No. 2 | b | 0.48 ± 0.12 b | 105 | 1.06 ± 0.13 a | 232 | <0.001 | |||
APX | M. sieversii cv. KG10 | No. 1 | 51.9 ± 4.66 | − | 48.2 ± 3.44 | 92.9 | 49.9 ± 4.58 | 96.1 | 0.595 |
No. 2 | a | 14.1 ± 1.29 b | 27.1 | 7.45 ± 0.91 b | 14.4 | <0.001 | |||
P. pyraster cv. Wild | No. 1 | 26.2 ± 1.54 | b | 36.6 ± 1.79 a | 140 | 17.2 ± 1.90 c | 65.6 | <0.001 | |
No. 2 | a | 5.98 ± 1.11 b | 22.8 | 5.17 ± 0.40 b | 19.7 | <0.05 | |||
CAT | M. sieversii cv. KG10 | No. 1 | 6.29 ± 0.77 | b | 12.9 ± 1.66 a | 205 | 12.1 ± 0.52 a | 193 | <0.001 |
No. 2 | c | 1 665 ± 40.1 b | 265× | 2 320 ± 163 a | 369× | <0.001 | |||
P. pyraster cv. Wild | No. 1 | 2 003 ± 155 | b | 4 169 ± 181 a | 208 | 816 ± 62.7 c | 40.7 | <0.001 | |
No. 2 | b | 2 968 ± 150 a | 148 | 1 186 ± 165 c | 59.2 | <0.001 | |||
GR | M. sieversii cv. KG10 | No. 1 | 2.69 ± 0.45 | b | 4.38 ± 0.97 ab | 163 | 5.55 ± 1.08 a | 207 | <0.05 |
No. 2 | a | 0.29 ± 0.05 b | 10.9 | 0.18 ± 0.03 b | 6.85 | <0.01 | |||
P. pyraster cv. Wild | No. 1 | 1.18 ± 0.02 | b | 2.23 ± 0.23 a | 188 | 0.80 ± 0.10 c | 67.5 | <0.001 | |
No. 2 | a | 0.16 ± 0.02 b | 13.8 | 0.12 ± 0.01 b | 9.80 | <0.01 | |||
SOD | M. sieversii cv. KG10 | No. 1 | 4 187 ± 97.7 | a | 3 616 ± 119 b | 86.4 | 2 236 ± 163 c | 53.4 | <0.001 |
No. 2 | a | 663 ± 60.4 b | 15.8 | 524 ± 32.3 b | 12.5 | <0.01 | |||
P. pyraster cv. Wild | No. 1 | 218 ± 3.86 | b | 1 412 ± 160 a | 649 | 18.2 ± 1.07 c | 8.38 | <0.01 | |
No. 2 | b | 799 ± 164 a | 367 | 724 ± 72.8 a | 333 | <0.001 |
Parameter | Cv. | BP | Ctrl | Time of Micro-Shoots’ Inoculation, min | p-Value (n = 9) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
30 | % to Ctrl | 60 | % to Ctrl | ||||||
Protein | M. domestica cv. Aport | No. 1 | 0.84 ± 0.02 | a | 0.71 ± 0.05 a | 84.8 | 0.46 ± 0.09 b | 54.8 | <0.001 |
No. 2 | b | 1.20 ± 0.06 a | 144 | 1.19 ± 0.04 a | 142 | <0.05 | |||
P. communis cv. Shygys | No. 1 | 0.62 ± 0.05 | a | 0.75 ± 0.07 a | 122 | 0.47 ± 0.04 b | 76.0 | <0.01 | |
No. 2 | − | 0.73 ± 0.06 | 119 | 0.74 ± 0.09 | 119 | 0.118 | |||
APX | M. domestica cv. Aport | No. 1 | 9.50 ± 1.20 | b | 9.05 ± 1.02 b | 95.3 | 20.4 ± 3.35 a | 214 | <0.05 |
No. 2 | − | 8.91 ± 1.27 | 93.7 | 8.91 ± 0.59 | 93.8 | 0.744 | |||
P. communis cv. Shygys | No. 1 | 21.9 ± 1.01 | − | 21.1 ± 2.69 | 96.1 | 24.4 ± 3.25 | 111 | 0.325 | |
No. 2 | a | 13.4 ± 1.55 b | 61.0 | 10.3 ± 0.84 c | 46.8 | <0.001 | |||
CAT | M. domestica cv. Aport | No. 1 | 2.60 ± 0.48 | c | 5.16 ± 0.38 b | 199 | 7.51 ± 0.79 a | 289 | <0.001 |
No. 2 | c | 921 ± 27.6 b | 355× | 1 849 ± 230 a | 713× | <0.001 | |||
P. communis cv. Shygys | No. 1 | 1 742 ± 88.5 | b | 2 333 ± 48.2 ab | 134 | 5 385 ± 404 a | 309 | <0.01 | |
No. 2 | b | 2 920 ± 165 a | 168 | 1 290 ± 66.1 c | 74.0 | <0.001 | |||
GR | M. domestica cv. Aport | No. 1 | 1.03 ± 0.05 | − | 0.76 ± 0.18 | 73.4 | 0.80 ± 0.07 | 77.5 | 0.051 |
No. 2 | a | 0.22 ± 0.02 b | 21.5 | 0.27 ± 0.02 b | 26.5 | <0.01 | |||
P. communis cv. Shygys | No. 1 | 0.65 ± 0.04 | c | 1.10 ± 0.04 b | 170 | 1.52 ± 0.13 a | 235 | <0.001 | |
No. 2 | b | 0.76 ± 0.04 b | 117 | 1.26 ± 0.03 a | 195 | <0.01 | |||
SOD | M. domestica cv. Aport | No. 1 | 708 ± 28.2 | c | 884 ± 24.9 b | 125 | 1 203 ± 78.8 a | 170 | <0.001 |
No. 2 | − | 674 ± 19.3 | 95.3 | 736 ± 54.3 | 104 | 0.206 | |||
P. communis cv. Shygys | No. 1 | 237 ± 7.67 | a | 58.6 ± 4.08 b | 24.7 | 22.2 ± 2.09 c | 9.36 | <0.01 | |
No. 2 | b | 243 ± 14.8 ab | 103 | 266 ± 6.13 a | 112 | <0.05 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nurzhanova, A.A.; Mamirova, A.; Mursaliyeva, V.; Nurmagambetova, A.S.; Zhumasheva, Z.; Turdiyev, T.; Kushnarenko, S.; Ismailova, E. In Vitro Approbation of Microbial Preparations to Shield Fruit Crops from Fire Blight: Physio-Biochemical Parameters. Plants 2024, 13, 1431. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13111431
Nurzhanova AA, Mamirova A, Mursaliyeva V, Nurmagambetova AS, Zhumasheva Z, Turdiyev T, Kushnarenko S, Ismailova E. In Vitro Approbation of Microbial Preparations to Shield Fruit Crops from Fire Blight: Physio-Biochemical Parameters. Plants. 2024; 13(11):1431. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13111431
Chicago/Turabian StyleNurzhanova, Asil A., Aigerim Mamirova, Valentina Mursaliyeva, Asiya S. Nurmagambetova, Zhadyra Zhumasheva, Timur Turdiyev, Svetlana Kushnarenko, and Elvira Ismailova. 2024. "In Vitro Approbation of Microbial Preparations to Shield Fruit Crops from Fire Blight: Physio-Biochemical Parameters" Plants 13, no. 11: 1431. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13111431