Next Article in Journal
Effects of Selected Biopesticides on Two Arthropod Pests of Cannabis sativa L. in Northeastern Oregon
Previous Article in Journal
Natural Herbicide Shows Cytotoxicity, Neurotoxicity, and Antioxidant System Alterations on SH-SY5Y and HaCaT Cell Lines
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Fungal Biorevolution: A Trifecta of Genome Mining, Synthetic Biology, and RNAi for Next-Generation Fungicides

by
Víctor Coca-Ruiz
Institute for Mediterranean and Subtropical Horticulture “La Mayora” (IHSM), CSIC-UMA, Campus de Teatinos, Avda. Louis Pasteur, 49, 29010 Málaga, Spain
Agrochemicals 2025, 4(4), 18; https://doi.org/10.3390/agrochemicals4040018
Submission received: 1 August 2025 / Revised: 30 September 2025 / Accepted: 13 October 2025 / Published: 14 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Fungicides and Bactericides)

Abstract

Modern agriculture faces a critical challenge from escalating fungicide resistance and the ecological impact of conventional agrochemicals. A paradigm shift is required, moving beyond simple product substitution toward an integrated technological platform. This review outlines such a platform, built on the synergy of three technologies: genome mining for rational discovery of novel antifungal compounds, synthetic biology for their scalable and cost-effective production, and RNA interference (RNAi) for highly specific pathogen control and resistance management. We argue that the integration of this trifecta—discovery, production, and targeted application—creates an adaptable pipeline for developing next-generation biofungicides. This approach transforms crop protection from a static defense to a dynamic, sustainable system capable of co-evolving with pathogens, ensuring future food security while minimizing environmental impact.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction: The Imperative for a Paradigm Shift in Fungal Disease Management

1.1. The Twilight of the Chemical Fungicide Era

For over half a century, synthetic chemical fungicides have been a cornerstone of modern agriculture, playing a pivotal role in securing global food supplies and enabling the high-yield cropping systems that feed the world’s population [1]. Their development represented a technological revolution, providing farmers with reliable and effective tools to manage devastating plant diseases. However, the very success and widespread use of these compounds, particularly those with a single mode of action, have led to the current challenges [1,2]. The current agricultural model, highly dependent on synthetic fungicides, faces unsustainable challenges that threaten global food security [2]. The intensive application of these compounds has precipitated a multifaceted crisis. Firstly, the selection pressure exerted by broad-spectrum fungicides, such as azoles, has accelerated the evolution of resistant pathogen populations, rendering frontline treatments ineffective [3]. This phenomenon is not a future threat but a current reality that leaves farmers on a “fungicide treadmill,” where the emergence of resistance to one chemical forces the adoption of another, often more expensive and with an equally limited useful lifespan [4,5,6]. The history of crop protection is marked by the sequential emergence of variant genotypes with reduced sensitivity to the most potent single-site fungicide classes, including methyl benzimidazole carbamates (MBCs), demethylation inhibitors (DMIs), quinone outside inhibitors (QoIs), and succinate dehydrogenase inhibitors (SDHIs) [7]. This evolutionary arms race is a serious problem; for example, resistance to benzimidazoles, phenylamides, and sterol biosynthesis inhibitors is a growing issue in Brazilian agriculture, affecting numerous fruit pathogens [8].
Beyond resistance, there is a growing concern about the impact on the environment and human health. The overuse of agrochemicals leads to soil and water contamination, with detrimental effects on non-target organisms [9]. An alarming example of unintended consequences is the documented connection between the agricultural use of azoles and the emergence of drug-resistant human pathogens, such as Aspergillus fumigatus, which underscores a serious threat under the “One Health” concept [10]. The non-target effects of fungicides are not merely collateral damage; they are direct drivers of increased ecosystem fragility. Repeated applications of broad-spectrum fungicides can create a “microbial desert,” eliminating not only the pathogen but also the beneficial microorganisms that contribute to plant health and natural disease suppression. This systematic destruction of the immunity conferred by the plant’s microbiome creates a cycle of dependency: the more you spray, the more necessary it becomes to spray, as the natural biological control mechanisms have been eradicated [11]. Recent research has shown that intensive fungicide use can decrease the activity of beneficial soil microbes, leading to a more disease-prone microbial environment. In fact, soils from locations with a history of less intensive fungicide use have been observed to show greater disease suppression, suggesting that intensive fungicide use can suppress the natural microbial antagonism of pathogen activity [4]. This suppression of natural antagonism affects key beneficial microorganisms known to contribute to soil health and disease suppression, including bacterial genera such as Pseudomonas and fungal biocontrol agents like Trichoderma spp., as well as symbiotic arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi that enhance plant nutrient uptake and stress resilience.

1.2. The Promise and Pitfalls of First-Generation Biological Control Agents

In response to the shortcomings of chemical products, biological alternatives have emerged, such as microbial biofungicides and botanical extracts [12]. These biological control agents (BCAs) offer a more favorable ecological profile, often with a short half-life in the environment and lower toxicity to non-target organisms. However, their widespread adoption has been hindered by significant limitations. First-generation BCAs often exhibit inconsistent efficacy in the field, as their performance is highly dependent on environmental conditions like temperature and humidity, making them less reliable for consistent field performance than their synthetic counterparts [13]. Furthermore, issues such as shorter shelf life, high production costs, and difficulties in scaling up the manufacturing of active compounds have limited their market competitiveness. The transition from the lab to the field is a notorious challenge; many BCAs that show great success under controlled conditions fail to replicate those results outdoors [14]. Formulation is another major hurdle, as these living organisms require special storage and formulation techniques to maintain their viability and efficacy. The path from academic research to a robust and reliable commercial product, such as the case of Fungifree AB® (FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA, USA), is a considerable challenge that few manage to overcome, often requiring more than a decade of research and development, from basic science to product registration and the creation of a spin-off company [15].

1.3. The Dawn of a New Technological Trifecta

To achieve a true paradigm shift, it is necessary to go beyond simply replacing one product with another and adopt an integrated, technology-driven approach. This article posits that the convergence of three technological fields—genome mining, synthetic biology, and RNA interference (RNAi)—offers a synergistic and multifaceted solution. This trifecta represents a complete pipeline (Figure 1):
-
Genome Mining: For the rational and targeted discovery of new antifungal natural products.
-
Synthetic Biology: For the reliable, scalable, and cost-effective production of these discovered products.
-
RNA Interference (RNAi): For hyper-specific, non-chemical control and strategic resistance management.
Figure 1. The Technological Trifecta for a New Generation of Biofungicides. This diagram illustrates the conceptual framework of the fungal biorevolution and the synergy between three key technologies. Genome mining allows for the rational discovery of new antifungal compounds and their biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) from vast fungal diversity. Synthetic biology provides the tools for reliable, scalable, and cost-effective production of these discovered compounds by engineering microbial “chassis”. RNA interference (RNAi), specifically through Spray-Induced Gene Silencing (SIGS), offers hyper-specific, non-chemical pathogen control and a powerful strategy for resistance management. The integration of these fields creates a robust, adaptable, and synergistic pipeline to overcome the limitations of both conventional fungicides and first-generation biologicals.
Figure 1. The Technological Trifecta for a New Generation of Biofungicides. This diagram illustrates the conceptual framework of the fungal biorevolution and the synergy between three key technologies. Genome mining allows for the rational discovery of new antifungal compounds and their biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) from vast fungal diversity. Synthetic biology provides the tools for reliable, scalable, and cost-effective production of these discovered compounds by engineering microbial “chassis”. RNA interference (RNAi), specifically through Spray-Induced Gene Silencing (SIGS), offers hyper-specific, non-chemical pathogen control and a powerful strategy for resistance management. The integration of these fields creates a robust, adaptable, and synergistic pipeline to overcome the limitations of both conventional fungicides and first-generation biologicals.
Agrochemicals 04 00018 g001
The term “biorevolution” in this context signifies more than the simple application of novel tools; it represents a fundamental shift in the research and development philosophy for crop protection. The traditional model involves a linear, high-risk search for a single “silver bullet” molecule, which is then produced statically until resistance inevitably renders it obsolete. The integrated pipeline proposed here offers a paradigm shift toward a cyclical, data-driven, and adaptable platform technology. This platform is not designed to produce a single, static product but to function as a flexible manufacturing system. It can anticipate and respond to pathogen evolution by rapidly discovering new compounds, reconfiguring production chassis, and designing targeted RNAi-based resistance-breaking tools. This manuscript provides a roadmap for this transition, outlining how the synergy between these technologies overcomes the discrete bottlenecks of each, creating a resilient and sustainable engine for fungicide development that is not yet fully articulated in existing reviews.
The synergy between these three pillars can overcome the limitations of both chemical fungicides and first-generation biologicals. This integrated approach directly addresses the need for sustainable alternatives that minimize environmental and health impacts while providing effective and durable disease control [11]. A comparative analysis of these technologies is presented in Table 1.

1.4. The Economic Imperative: Market Dynamics of Next-Generation Fungicides

The scientific push for novel biofungicides is mirrored by a powerful economic pull, making the development of this technological pipeline not just a scientific pursuit but a market necessity. The global biopesticides market, which includes biofungicides, is undergoing a period of rapid expansion, driven by strong consumer demand for organic produce, tightening government regulations on chemical pesticides, and the growing problem of fungicide resistance in conventional agriculture [27,28].
Market analyses consistently project robust, double-digit growth for the biofungicide sector through 2030 (Figure 2) [28]. In 2020, the global biofungicides market was valued at approximately USD 1.6 billion. Projections indicate this value will grow significantly, with estimates reaching between USD 4.0 billion and USD 5.34 billion by 2030 [29]. This expansion corresponds to a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) consistently forecasted in the range of 9.5% to 16.1% for the coming decade [28]. This strong and sustained market growth underscores the urgent need for the robust, scalable, and effective discovery and production platforms that the technological trifecta of genome mining, synthetic biology, and RNAi can provide [28,29].

2. Unlocking Nature’s Blueprint: Fungal Genome Mining for Novel Antifungal Chemotypes

2.1. From Random Screening to Rational Discovery

The “golden age” of antibiotic discovery was based on cultivating microbes and screening their activity, an inherently random process that led to a high rate of rediscovery of known compounds [30]. This traditional methodology was blind and contingent, lacking a rational experimental design from strain isolation to compound extraction. Genome mining represents a fundamental shift toward a rational, sequence-based approach. By analyzing an organism’s genome, scientists can predict the chemical diversity it can produce, even if the compounds are not expressed under laboratory conditions. This allows for targeted discovery and computational “de-replication,” dramatically increasing efficiency and the likelihood of finding novel structures. This genome-based approach transforms natural product discovery from a low-productivity process to a revolutionary strategy that can address the need for new pesticides and medicines [31].

2.2. The Centrality of Biosynthetic Gene Clusters (BGCs)

BGCs are the genomic “factories” responsible for the production of secondary metabolites. Typically, they consist of a core gene encoding a synthase enzyme (such as a polyketide synthase, PKS, or a non-ribosomal peptide synthetase, NRPS) along with genes encoding modification enzymes, transporters, and regulators [32]. The potential of this resource is immense; fungal genomes harbor a vast number of BGCs, and it is estimated that over 80–95% of their chemical potential remains “silent” or cryptic under standard culture conditions, waiting to be discovered [33]. Bioinformatic tools like antiSMASH, and the development of new pipelines to identify non-canonical BGCs (such as those producing isocyanides), are fundamental to exploring this vast genomic territory [34]. The scientific community now has access to databases like MIBiG (Minimum Information about a Biosynthetic Gene cluster) and analysis tools like BiG-SCAPE, which allow for large-scale comparison and network analysis of BGCs to prioritize novel candidates [35,36].

2.3. Activating the Silent Majority: Strategies to Awaken Cryptic BGCs

To access the chemistry encoded in these silent BGCs, several activation strategies have been developed:
Genetic Manipulation: Overexpression of pathway-specific transcription factors or manipulation of global regulators, such as LaeA, can induce the expression of entire clusters [18].
Co-culture: Simulating natural microbial interactions by growing two or more species together can trigger the expression of BGCs as a form of chemical defense or communication. The fungus Epicoccum dendrobii, for example, induces profound metabolic changes in other fungi when co-cultured with them, revealing its hidden chemical potential [37]. This strategy, sometimes called OSMAC (One Strain, Many Compounds), exploits the idea that secondary metabolites are often produced in response to specific environmental stimuli [38].
Epigenetic Modification: The use of chemical inhibitors of histone deacetylases or methyltransferases can alter chromatin structure, making previously inaccessible BGCs transcriptionally active. This approach can unlock the production of compounds that would otherwise remain hidden [18].

2.4. Case Studies in Fungal Bioprospecting

Three examples illustrate the power of this approach:
The Genus Epicoccum: A systematic study of E. dendrobii exemplifies the full genome-to-function pipeline. Genome sequencing revealed 34 predicted BGCs, prompting a detailed chemical analysis. This led to the isolation and characterization of 13 compounds, including novel polyketides and bioactive diketopiperazines. Functional validation confirmed potent antifungal activity against the economically important plant pathogen Botrytis cinerea, with specific compounds demonstrating significant inhibition in bioassays, thus validating the predictive power of the genomic approach [37].
Lichenized Fungi: These often-overlooked symbioses are a treasure trove of unique chemistry. Genome mining of Umbilicaria species showed that 25% to 30% of their BGCs are highly divergent from known clusters, suggesting they encode natural products with novel structures and functions [32]. This demonstrates the value of exploring unique ecological niches for bioprospecting.
Marine Fungi: Fungi derived from marine environments are another promising frontier. They have evolved unique metabolic and defense mechanisms to survive in their extreme environments, making them a prolific source of structurally novel and bioactive compounds. Genome mining of these organisms is uncovering BGCs that produce polyketides, terpenoids, and alkaloids with significant potential for drug development [39] (Table 2).
The advancement in sequencing has fundamentally shifted the bottleneck in natural product discovery. The challenge is no longer finding new organisms, but functionally characterizing the overwhelming number of predicted BGCs. We are in an era rich in sequence data but poor in functional characterization [30]. This “characterization bottleneck” creates strong selective pressure for the development of the technologies discussed in the next section [40]. The sheer number of uncharacterized BGCs makes heterologous expression (a pillar of synthetic biology) not just an option, but a necessity for high-throughput functional screening. It is far more efficient to synthesize and express BGCs in a well-characterized host than to attempt to create mutants in thousands of non-model fungi.
This establishes a direct causal link between the challenges of genome mining and the solutions offered by synthetic biology.

2.5. The Characterization Bottleneck: From Sequence to Function

While advances in sequencing have made genomic data widely accessible, they have also revealed a significant challenge that now defines the field of natural product discovery: the “characterization bottleneck” [41]. Fungal genomes are replete with BGCs, yet it is estimated that over 95% of this biosynthetic potential remains cryptic, meaning the clusters are not expressed under standard laboratory conditions, and their corresponding metabolic products are unknown [42]. The result is a landscape rich in sequence data but poor in functional characterization. This bottleneck is not trivial; it is the primary obstacle preventing the translation of genomic potential into novel chemistry. The sheer scale of uncharacterized BGCs across thousands of sequenced fungal genomes makes traditional methods of inducing expression, such as altering culture conditions (the OSMAC approach), inefficient for high-throughput discovery [42]. This reality creates a strong selective pressure for new strategies, establishing a direct and critical link to the tools of synthetic biology. Heterologous expression of predicted BGCs in a well-characterized microbial chassis is no longer just a method for production but has become an essential, high-throughput platform for functional validation and discovery, allowing researchers to bypass the silence of BGCs in their native hosts and directly link gene clusters to their chemical products.

3. Engineering the Cellular Factory: Synthetic Biology for Scalable Biofungicide Production

3.1. The Microbial Chassis Concept

Synthetic biology addresses the production challenge through the concept of “chassis” or “cell factories”: well-characterized and industrially robust microorganisms that are engineered to produce molecules of interest [17]. These chassis are optimized to channel metabolic precursors into the desired biosynthetic pathway, overcoming the low yields often found in native producers [19]. Two types of chassis are particularly relevant:
Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Yeast): It is a powerful eukaryotic host with GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status, a vast toolkit for genetic engineering, and limited native secondary metabolism, which minimizes interference with the engineered production pathways [21]. Its industrial robustness and the deep knowledge of its biology make it an ideal platform for the heterologous expression of complex pathways [24].
Filamentous Fungi (Aspergillus, Penicillium): As natural producers of complex secondary metabolites, these fungi possess the necessary cellular machinery, such as enzymes for post-translational modifications, to correctly fold and modify complex fungal products. They are invaluable workhorses for natural product research and production [18]. Their secretion capacity and ability to grow on low-cost substrates make them highly attractive for biotechnological applications [43].

3.2. The Synthetic Biologist’s Toolkit for Pathway Engineering

To build and optimize these cell factories, scientists employ a suite of cutting-edge tools:
Heterologous Expression: This is the key process connecting genome mining to production. It involves taking a BGC from a rare, slow-growing, or genetically intractable fungus and expressing it in a high-performance industrial chassis. This unlocks access to the chemistry discovered in the mining phase [18].
Gene Editing (CRISPR-Cas9): Allows for the precise insertion of entire BGCs, the deletion of native pathways that compete for precursors, and targeted genetic modifications to optimize metabolic flux [44]. Versatile CRISPR-Cas9 systems have been developed specifically for filamentous fungi, enabling rapid and efficient genetic engineering across a wide range of species.
Modular Cloning and Standardized Parts: Platforms like FungalBraid (FB), compatible with systems like GoldenBraid, allow for the rapid and standardized assembly of genetic circuits from a library of pre-characterized parts (promoters, terminators, resistance markers). This drastically accelerates the design-build-test-learn cycle [43].
Promoter Engineering: The use of a suite of constitutive, inducible, and synthetic promoters with different strengths allows for fine-tuning gene expression levels within the BGC. This is crucial for maximizing product titer and avoiding the accumulation of toxic intermediates [45]. Synthetic promoters can be created by incorporating cis-regulatory elements into a minimal promoter, enabling precise and programmable control of gene expression.

3.3. Beyond Imitation: Creating “Better-Than-Nature” Molecules

Synthetic biology is not limited to recreating natural products; it enables the creation of analogs with improved properties. By engineering the core synthase enzymes (PKS, NRPS) to incorporate different building blocks, or by altering modification enzymes, it is possible to generate libraries of new compounds through “combinatorial biosynthesis” [17]. This approach can yield molecules with higher bioactivity, stability, or specificity. This approach directly addresses the historical obstacles to the commercialization of natural products: low yields from native sources, supply chain instability, and high production costs [19].
The relationship between synthetic biology and genome mining is not linear (Discover → Produce), but cyclical and mutually reinforcing. Instead of trying to activate a BGC in its native, often difficult-to-manipulate host, researchers can now synthesize the predicted BGC in silico, express it in a clean yeast or Aspergillus chassis, and use metabolomics to identify the new compound produced. This transforms heterologous expression from a “production” technology to a “high-throughput discovery and validation” platform. This cycle (mine genomes for targets → use SynBio to validate targets and identify products → identify promising products → use SynBio to optimize production) dramatically accelerates the entire pipeline from gene to field.

4. Precision Warfare: RNAi-Based Biofungicides for Targeted Pathogen Neutralization

4.1. The Mechanism of RNAi as a Fungicide

RNA interference (RNAi) is a conserved mechanism of post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS) in eukaryotes [17]. The process is triggered by the presence of exogenous double-stranded RNA (dsRNA), which is processed by the Dicer enzyme into small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) of 21–24 nucleotides. These siRNAs are loaded into the RNA-Induced Silencing Complex (RISC), which uses the siRNA as a guide to find and degrade the complementary target mRNA, effectively silencing gene expression [20]. This natural defense mechanism can be co-opted to develop highly specific biopesticides [23].

4.2. SIGS: A Non-Transgenic Route for Crop Protection

It is crucial to distinguish between Host-Induced Gene Silencing (HIGS), which requires the creation of a genetically modified (GM) plant, and Spray-Induced Gene Silencing (SIGS). SIGS is a non-GM approach where dsRNA is applied topically, similar to a conventional pesticide. The advantages of SIGS are significant: as a non-transgenic approach, it avoids the specific regulatory frameworks and public acceptance issues associated with genetically modified (GM) crops. However, it does not bypass regulation entirely. Topically applied dsRNA is treated as a biochemical pesticide, falling under established regulatory frameworks such as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in the United States and Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 in the European Union. The regulatory landscape for these products is still evolving, with agencies requiring comprehensive data on environmental fate, stability, and potential non-target effects to ensure safety [46,47]. This technology represents an ecological and sustainable alternative to chemical fungicides, with minimal risk to non-target organisms and human health.

4.3. Key Challenges and Emerging Solutions for Field Application

Despite its promise, the practical application of SIGS faces several challenges:
dsRNA Stability: “Naked” dsRNA is rapidly degraded in the environment by UV light and microbial nucleases, providing only a narrow window of protection (a few days).
Delivery and Uptake: To be effective, the dsRNA must penetrate the fungal cell. Several pathogenic fungi, including Fusarium circinatum, have been shown to be able to take up externally applied dsRNA [48]. Two routes have been proposed: direct uptake by the fungus (“environmental RNAi”) and uptake by the plant followed by transfer to the pathogen (“cross-kingdom RNAi”).
Innovative Formulations: The use of nanocarriers (such as layered double hydroxides, liposomes, or carbon dots) to protect dsRNA from degradation and enhance its uptake and persistence is a critical area of research that is overcoming the stability bottleneck. These formulations can improve efficacy and prolong the protection window, making SIGS more commercially viable [22].
Target Gene Selection: Safety and efficacy depend on selecting genes that are essential for the pathogen (e.g., for virulence or development) and have no off-target homology in the host plant or beneficial organisms [19]. Advances in bioinformatics and functional genomics have greatly improved the ability to identify and validate these target genes with high precision [49].

4.4. Successful Applications Against Relevant Fungal Pathogens

Several proof-of-concept studies have demonstrated the efficacy of SIGS against fungi of great economic importance, such as Botrytis cinerea (gray mold) and Fusarium graminearum (Fusarium head blight), validating the potential of this technology (Table 3) [50]. Research has shown that SIGS can significantly reduce pathogen virulence and protect crops in both laboratory and field conditions [51].
The most profound application of RNAi in agriculture may not be as a standalone fungicide, but as a strategic tool to manage and even reverse resistance to other fungicides. Resistance is a genetic phenomenon, often caused by a specific mutation or the overexpression of a resistance gene. Since RNAi has exquisite sequence specificity, it can be designed to specifically silence the mRNA of the gene conferring resistance. A SIGS product could, for example, target the mutated version of a target gene, eliminating only the resistant members of the pathogen population. Alternatively, it could silence an efflux pump gene, making the pathogen susceptible again to a conventional fungicide. This “resistance-buster” strategy elevates RNAi from a simple “biopesticide” to a cornerstone of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and the sustainable chemistry of the future.

4.5. From Lab to Field: Overcoming the Hurdles of SIGS Application

The promise of SIGS as a precise, non-GM fungicide is tempered by monumental challenges related to its practical application in the field. An overly optimistic view overlooks the critical hurdles of stability, uptake, and cost, which are currently the focus of intensive research.
dsRNA Stability: Topically applied, “naked” dsRNA is highly susceptible to environmental degradation. It is rapidly broken down by microbial nucleases in the soil and on leaf surfaces, and is particularly sensitive to UV radiation from sunlight, with a half-life that can be measured in hours or a few days, providing only a transient window of protection [52]. To address this, formulation technologies are critical. Encapsulation in nanocarriers, such as layered double hydroxide (LDH) clays (termed “BioClay”), has been shown to protect dsRNA from degradation and provide sustained release, extending the protection window against plant viruses to at least 20–30 days in proof-of-concept studies [23].
Uptake Efficiency: For SIGS to be effective, the dsRNA must be efficiently taken up by the target fungal cells. This remains a significant barrier, as the fungal cell wall presents a formidable obstacle, and the precise mechanisms of dsRNA internalization in fungi are not fully understood and appear to vary between species. Inefficient uptake is a primary reason for inconsistent field performance [53,54].
Production Cost: The cost of producing the large quantities of pure dsRNA required for broad-acre agricultural applications is currently prohibitively high. While chemical synthesis is feasible for lab-scale experiments, it is not economically viable for agriculture. Microbial fermentation in engineered bacteria (such as E. coli HT115) is emerging as the most promising route for scalable, cost-effective production, with target costs approaching USD 4 per gram, but these systems are still being optimized and are not yet at a commercial scale that can compete with conventional chemical fungicides [55,56].
Table 3. Successful Applications of Spray-Induced Gene Silencing (SIGS) Against Phytopathogenic Fungi.
Table 3. Successful Applications of Spray-Induced Gene Silencing (SIGS) Against Phytopathogenic Fungi.
Target PathogenHost PlantTarget Gene(s)dsRNA Delivery MethodReported EfficacyReference
Botrytis cinereaVarious (tomato, strawberry)Dicer-like genes (DCL1/2), virulence genesSpraying of naked dsRNA, nanocarriersSignificant reduction in pre- and post-harvest disease[50]
Fusarium graminearumBarley, wheatCYP51 genes (A, B, C)Spraying of naked dsRNAReduction in disease and mycotoxin accumulation[51]
Podosphaera xanthiiCucumberChitin synthase genesSpraying of naked dsRNAInhibition of powdery mildew growth[20]
Sclerotinia sclerotiorumCanolaPhotolyase geneSpraying of naked dsRNAReduction in disease severity[57]
Phomopsis obscuransStrawberryVirulence genesBioautography with dsRNADemonstrated antifungal activity[31]
Fusarium circinatumPineVesicle trafficking, signal transduction, cell wall biosynthesis genesSpraying of naked dsRNAInhibition of pathogen virulence in pine seedlings[48]

5. The Integrated Biofungicide Pipeline: A Synergistic Framework for the Future

5.1. From Silos to Synergy

The greatest potential of these technologies lies not in their isolated use, but in their integration into a unified pipeline. While current research often treats them as separate alternatives, true innovation lies in merging them into a coherent strategy that leverages the strengths of each to compensate for the weaknesses of the others. This holistic approach is essential for developing robust and sustainable solutions that can cope with the complexity of real-world plant diseases.

5.2. A Hypothetical Case Study: Designing a Next-Generation Control Strategy for Botrytis cinerea

To illustrate this integrated workflow, one can imagine a pipeline to combat gray mold in grapevines (Figure 3):
Phase 1 (Discovery and Validation): Genome mining is used on a panel of endophytic fungi isolated from grapevines. An AI-assisted BGC analysis identifies a promising and novel NRPS cluster predicted to produce a lipopeptide. The BGC is synthesized and expressed in S. cerevisiae (SynBio for validation). The resulting compound shows potent, targeted activity against the cell membrane integrity of B. cinerea.
Phase 2 (Optimized Production): The validated BGC is transferred to a high-performance P. chrysogenum chassis. Synthetic promoters and metabolic engineering are used to maximize product titer and formulate a stable, field-ready biofungicide (SynBio for production). This involves optimizing fermentation conditions and developing a formulation that ensures product stability and shelf life [3].
Phase 3 (Proactive Resistance Management): Simultaneously, a SIGS product is developed. Bioinformatics identifies a key ABC transporter gene known to be overexpressed in multi-fungicide-resistant strains of B. cinerea. A dsRNA molecule targeting this gene is designed and formulated with a biodegradable nanocarrier to enhance stability and uptake (RNAi for resistance management).
Phase 4 (Integrated Deployment): The SynBio-derived lipopeptide and the RNAi-based “resistance buster” are deployed in an integrated program. They can be used in rotation to provide different modes of action, or even co-formulated for a two-pronged attack, drastically reducing the likelihood of resistance evolution. This strategy aligns with the principles of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which promotes the use of multiple control tactics for sustainable pest management [58].
Figure 3. Integrated Workflow for the Development of a Biofungicide against Botrytis cinerea. This diagram shows a hypothetical case study detailing the integrated pipeline to develop a next-generation control strategy against.
Figure 3. Integrated Workflow for the Development of a Biofungicide against Botrytis cinerea. This diagram shows a hypothetical case study detailing the integrated pipeline to develop a next-generation control strategy against.
Agrochemicals 04 00018 g003
This integrated pipeline fundamentally changes the economic and strategic calculus of fungicide development. Instead of a static product destined for obsolescence, it creates a “living” pest management system that can evolve alongside the pathogen. The SynBio chassis is a reusable asset, and the genome mining database is a continuously growing resource. If resistance to the first product emerges, the platform can be rapidly reconfigured: a new BGC is pulled from the database and plugged into the existing production chassis. Concurrently, the RNAi component can be redesigned to target the new resistance gene. This transforms fungicide R&D from a series of discrete, high-risk “bets” into a flexible, adaptable, and sustainable manufacturing system.

6. Ecological Compatibility and Regulatory Horizons

6.1. Designing for the Holobiont

The high specificity of SynBio-derived molecules and RNAi-based fungicides offers the potential to target pathogens with minimal disruption to the plant’s beneficial microbiome (the holobiont) compared to broad-spectrum chemical fungicides. However, this remains a key hypothesis that requires rigorous empirical validation. Currently, there is a notable lack of published field-scale studies that have used next-generation sequencing to analyze soil and phyllosphere microbial communities following treatment with these novel agents. Whether these highly specific compounds cause unforeseen shifts in microbial diversity or function is a critical unknown and represents a priority for future ecological research [59]. The holobiont concept considers the plant and its associated microbiota as a single unit of selection, recognizing that these microbes play a crucial role in the plant’s health, growth, and disease resistance [59]. This “microbiome-friendly” approach contrasts sharply with the broad-spectrum activity of many chemical fungicides, which can inadvertently harm microbes that contribute to natural disease suppression. By preserving these beneficial communities, the new technologies can foster disease-suppressive soils, where indigenous microbial activity keeps pathogens in check [60].

6.2. Assessing Off-Target Effects on Soil Fauna

The analysis of ecological compatibility must extend beyond the microbiome to include soil fauna, which are critical for soil health and structure. Many key soil invertebrates—including beneficial nematodes (e.g., Caenorhabditis elegans), earthworms (e.g., Eisenia fetida), and arthropods—are eukaryotes that possess conserved and functional RNAi machinery [61]. This renders them potentially susceptible to off-target effects from environmental dsRNA if there is sufficient sequence homology between the applied dsRNA and their own essential genes. While careful bioinformatic design of dsRNA sequences to avoid matches with non-target organisms is a primary risk mitigation strategy, the sheer diversity of soil life makes comprehensive in silico screening challenging [62,63]. A significant knowledge gap exists regarding the ecotoxicological impact of dsRNA on these crucial non-target organisms. Rigorous, empirical testing is required to assess the potential for unintended harm and to establish the environmental safety profile of RNAi-based fungicides [64].

6.3. Navigating the Regulatory Landscape

Novel technologies face novel regulatory challenges. The framework for SynBio products (regulated as chemicals or as GMO products?) and for topically applied dsRNA is still evolving globally [25,26]. Key questions revolve around data requirements for off-target effects, environmental fate, and potential impacts on closely related species. Overcoming these hurdles, along with the challenges of manufacturing scale-up and farmer adoption, will be crucial for their successful commercialization. Farmer adoption will depend not only on efficacy but also on economic viability, ease of use, and the perceived benefits compared to existing practices.

7. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

7.1. Summary of the Integrated Vision

The convergence of genome mining, synthetic biology, and RNAi offers a transformative framework for the future of crop protection. This integrated vision moves beyond the limitations of both chemical fungicides and first-generation biological control agents by establishing a flexible and sustainable platform. The core takeaways from this analysis are:
The Current Paradigm is Unsustainable: The dual crises of fungicide resistance and environmental harm necessitate a move away from broad-spectrum chemical agents and inconsistent first-generation biologicals toward more precise, potent, and ecologically compatible solutions.
A Synergistic Technological Pipeline: The true innovation lies not in the individual technologies but in their integration. Genome mining provides the targets, synthetic biology provides the scalable production engine, and RNAi offers a precision tool for both direct control and proactive resistance management. This creates a complete pipeline from discovery to deployment.
Critical Challenges Remain: Realizing this vision requires overcoming significant scientific and practical hurdles. These include the functional characterization bottleneck in genomics, achieving economically viable titers in synthetic biology, ensuring the field stability and cost-effective production of dsRNA for RNAi, navigating an evolving regulatory landscape, and confirming the long-term ecological safety of these novel products.
The Future is Data-Driven and Collaborative: The acceleration of this pipeline will be heavily dependent on advancements in artificial intelligence and machine learning for target prediction, pathway optimization, and safety assessment. Ultimately, translating this potential into tangible agricultural solutions will demand unprecedented interdisciplinary collaboration between genomicists, synthetic biologists, plant pathologists, ecologists, and regulatory bodies.

7.2. The Role of AI and Machine Learning

Looking ahead, artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning will accelerate every phase of this pipeline: from predicting BGCs and their products from genomic data, to optimizing metabolic pathways in the SynBio chassis [46], to designing the most effective and specific dsRNA sequences for RNAi while minimizing off-target risks. Machine learning algorithms can analyze vast genomic and metabolomic datasets to identify hidden patterns, prioritize the most promising BGCs, and predict the bioactivity of novel compounds [65]. In synthetic biology, AI can guide the design of genetic circuits and optimize fermentation conditions for maximum production. For RNAi, AI can help design dsRNA molecules with high silencing efficacy and low off-target potential, accelerating the development of safer biopesticides [49].

7.3. On-Demand and in Situ Production

A forward-looking strategy involves the in situ production of biofungicides, wherein the plant or its associated beneficial microbes are engineered to synthesize protective compounds directly in the field. This could be achieved by introducing a BGC or a dsRNA-expressing cassette into the plant genome or into a beneficial endophytic or rhizospheric microbe. The expression could be controlled by sophisticated genetic circuits, such as using pathogen-inducible promoters that activate the defense pathway only upon detection of an attack, thereby minimizing metabolic load on the host. While conceptually powerful, this approach faces significant hurdles that must be addressed:
Ecological Safety: The environmental release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) requires rigorous assessment of gene flow to wild relatives or other microbes.
Regulatory Barriers: The regulatory framework for the deliberate release of engineered microbes is complex and presents a major barrier to field application.
Metabolic Burden: Constitutive or even induced production of complex secondary metabolites or dsRNA can impose a significant metabolic burden on the host organism, potentially impacting crop yield or the fitness of the beneficial microbe in a competitive soil environment.
System Stability: The long-term stability and efficacy of these engineered systems under variable and challenging field conditions remains a critical, unproven aspect of this futuristic approach.

7.4. A Call to Action

Realizing the full potential of this transformative approach requires greater interdisciplinary collaboration among genomicists, synthetic biologists, plant pathologists, ecologists, and regulators. The scientific community must work together to build this pipeline of the future, ensuring that the next generation of agrochemicals effectively protects our crops while safeguarding the health of our planet.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All the research data can be found in the text.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
AIArtificial Intelligence
BCAsBiological Control Agents
BGCBiosynthetic Gene Cluster
CRISPR-Cas9Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats associated protein 9
DMIsDemethylation Inhibitors
dsRNAdouble-stranded RNA
GRASGenerally Recognized as Safe
HIGSHost-Induced Gene Silencing
IPMIntegrated Pest Management
MBCsMethyl Benzimidazole Carbamates
NRPSNon-Ribosomal Peptide Synthetase
OSMACOne Strain, Many Compounds
PKSPolyketide Synthase
PTGSPost-Transcriptional Gene Silencing
QoIsQuinone outside Inhibitors
RNAiRNA interference
SDHIsSuccinate Dehydrogenase Inhibitors
SIGSSpray-Induced Gene Silencing
siRNAssmall interfering RNAs
SynBioSynthetic Biology

References

  1. Zubrod, J.P.; Bundschuh, M.; Arts, G.; Brühl, C.A.; Imfeld, G.; Knäbel, A.; Payraudeau, S.; Rasmussen, J.J.; Rohr, J.; Scharmüller, A.; et al. Fungicides: An Overlooked Pesticide Class? Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 3347–3365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Steinberg, G.; Gurr, S.J. Fungi, fungicide discovery and global food security. Fungal Genet. Biol. 2020, 144, 103476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Fenta, L.; Mekonnen, H. Microbial Biofungicides as a Substitute for Chemical Fungicides in the Control of Phytopathogens: Current Perspectives and Research Directions. Scientifica 2024, 2024, 5322696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Chou, M.-Y.; Patil, A.T.; Huo, D.; Lei, Q.; Kao-Kniffin, J.; Koch, P. Fungicide use intensity influences the soil microbiome and links to fungal disease suppressiveness in amenity turfgrass. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2025, 91, e01771-24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Bakker, L.; van der Werf, W.; Tittonell, P.; Wyckhuys, K.A.G.; Bianchi, F.J.J.A. Neonicotinoids in global agriculture: Evidence for a new pesticide treadmill? Ecol. Soc. 2020, 25, art26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mikaberidze, A.; Gokhale, C.S.; Bargués-Ribera, M.; Verma, P. The cost of fungicide resistance evolution in multi-field plant epidemics. PLoS Sustain. Transform. 2025, 4, e0000178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lucas, J.A.; Hawkins, N.J.; Fraaije, B.A. The Evolution of Fungicide Resistance. Adv. Appl. Microbiol. 2015, 90, 29–92. [Google Scholar]
  8. Deising, H.B.; Reimann, S.; Pascholati, S.F. Mechanisms and significance of fungicide resistance. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2008, 39, 286–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wu, P.-H.; Chang, H.-X.; Shen, Y.-M. Effects of synthetic and environmentally friendly fungicides on powdery mildew management and the phyllosphere microbiome of cucumber. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0282809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Verweij, P.E.; Chowdhary, A.; Melchers, W.J.G.; Meis, J.F. Azole Resistance in Aspergillus fumigatus: Can We Retain the Clinical Use of Mold-Active Antifungal Azoles? Clin. Infect. Dis. 2016, 62, 362–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. McLaughlin, M.S.; Yurgel, S.N.; Abbasi, P.A.; Ali, S. The effects of chemical fungicides and salicylic acid on the apple microbiome and fungal disease incidence under changing environmental conditions. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1342407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cenobio-Galindo, A.d.J.; Hernández-Fuentes, A.D.; González-Lemus, U.; Zaldívar-Ortega, A.K.; González-Montiel, L.; Madariaga-Navarrete, A.; Hernández-Soto, I. Biofungicides Based on Plant Extracts: On the Road to Organic Farming. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 6879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Villavicencio-Vásquez, M.; Espinoza-Lozano, F.; Espinoza-Lozano, L.; Coronel-León, J. Biological control agents: Mechanisms of action, selection, formulation and challenges in agriculture. Front. Agron. 2025, 7, 1578915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bonaterra, A.; Badosa, E.; Cabrefiga, J.; Francés, J.; Montesinos, E. Prospects and limitations of microbial pesticides for control of bacterial and fungal pomefruit tree diseases. Trees 2012, 26, 215–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Galindo, E.; Serrano-Carreón, L.; Gutiérrez, C.R.; Allende, R.; Balderas, K.; Patiño, M.; Trejo, M.; Wong, M.A.; Rayo, E.; Isauro, D.; et al. The challenges of introducing a new biofungicide to the market: A case study. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 2013, 16, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. David, F.; Davis, A.M.; Gossing, M.; Hayes, M.A.; Romero, E.; Scott, L.H.; Wigglesworth, M.J. A Perspective on Synthetic Biology in Drug Discovery and Development—Current Impact and Future Opportunities. SLAS Discov. 2021, 26, 581–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sellamuthu, G.; Chakraborty, A.; Vetukuri, R.R.; Sarath, S.; Roy, A. RNAi-biofungicides: A quantum leap for tree fungal pathogen management. Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. 2025, 45, 1131–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mattern, D.J.; Valiante, V.; Unkles, S.E.; Brakhage, A.A. Synthetic biology of fungal natural products. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhao, J.; Liang, D.; Li, W.; Yan, X.; Qiao, J.; Caiyin, Q. Research Progress on the Synthetic Biology of Botanical Biopesticides. Bioengineering 2022, 9, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ray, P.; Sahu, D.; Aminedi, R.; Chandran, D. Concepts and considerations for enhancing RNAi efficiency in phytopathogenic fungi for RNAi-based crop protection using nanocarrier-mediated dsRNA delivery systems. Front. Fungal Biol. 2022, 3, 977502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Siddiqui, M.S.; Thodey, K.; Trenchard, I.; Smolke, C.D. Advancing secondary metabolite biosynthesis in yeast with synthetic biology tools. FEMS Yeast Res. 2012, 12, 144–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chen, C.; Imran, M.; Feng, X.; Shen, X.; Sun, Z. Spray-induced gene silencing for crop protection: Recent advances and emerging trends. Front. Plant Sci. 2025, 16, 1527944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Mitter, N.; Worrall, E.A.; Robinson, K.E.; Li, P.; Jain, R.G.; Taochy, C.; Fletcher, S.J.; Carroll, B.J.; Lu, G.Q.; Xu, Z.P. Clay nanosheets for topical delivery of RNAi for sustained protection against plant viruses. Nat. Plants 2017, 3, 16207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Council, N.R. The Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States; National Academies Press: Washington, WA, USA, 2010; pp. 1–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mandel, G.N.; Marchant, G.E. The Living Regulatory Challenges of Synthetic Biology. Iowa Law Rev. 2014, 100, 155–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rinaldi, A.; Mat Jalaluddin, N.S.; Mohd Hussain, R.B.; Abdul Ghapor, A. Building public trust and acceptance towards spray-on RNAi biopesticides: Lessons from current ethical, legal and social discourses. GM Crops Food 2025, 16, 398–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Biopesticides Market Size, Trends, Growth, Industry Report Forecast. Available online: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/biopesticides-267.html (accessed on 30 September 2025).
  28. Bio fungicides Market Size, Report 2030F. Available online: https://www.techsciresearch.com/report/bio-fungicides-market/4156.html (accessed on 30 September 2025).
  29. United States Bio-Fungicide Market Size & Share Analysis—Industry Research Report—Growth Trends. Available online: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/us-biofungicide-market (accessed on 30 September 2025).
  30. Li, Z.; Zhu, D.; Shen, Y. Discovery of novel bioactive natural products driven by genome mining. Drug Discov. Ther. 2018, 12, 318–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tamang, P.; Upadhaya, A.; Paudel, P.; Meepagala, K.; Cantrell, C.L. Mining Biosynthetic Gene Clusters of Pseudomonas vancouverensis Utilizing Whole Genome Sequencing. Microorganisms 2024, 12, 548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Singh, G.; Dal Grande, F.; Schmitt, I. Genome mining as a biotechnological tool for the discovery of novel biosynthetic genes in lichens. Front. Fungal Biol. 2022, 3, 993171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Keller, N.P. Fungal secondary metabolism: Regulation, function and drug discovery. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2019, 17, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nickles, G.R.; Oestereicher, B.; Keller, N.P.; Drott, M.T. Mining for a new class of fungal natural products: The evolution, diversity, and distribution of isocyanide synthase biosynthetic gene clusters. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023, 51, 7220–7235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kautsar, S.A.; Blin, K.; Shaw, S.; Navarro-Muñoz, J.C.; Terlouw, B.R.; Van Der Hooft, J.J.J.; Van Santen, J.A.; Tracanna, V.; Duran, H.G.S.; Andreu, V.P.; et al. MIBiG 2.0: A repository for biosynthetic gene clusters of known function. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020, 48, D454–D458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Navarro-Muñoz, J.C.; Selem-Mojica, N.; Mullowney, M.W.; Kautsar, S.A.; Tryon, J.H.; Parkinson, E.I.; De Los Santos, E.L.C.; Yeong, M.; Cruz-Morales, P.; Abubucker, S.; et al. A computational framework to explore large-scale biosynthetic diversity. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2020, 16, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, A.; Xu, X.; Yin, W.-B. Genome Mining of Epicoccum dendrobii Reveals Diverse Antimicrobial Natural Products. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2025, 73, 6691–6701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Klug, K.; Zhu, P.; Pattar, P.; Mueller, T.; Safari, N.; Sommer, F.; Valero-Jiménez, C.A.; van Kan, J.A.L.; Huettel, B.; Stueber, K.; et al. Genome Comparisons between Botrytis fabae and the Closely Related Gray Mold Fungus Botrytis cinerea Reveal Possible Explanations for Their Contrasting Host Ranges. J. Fungi 2024, 10, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Han, C.; Song, A.; He, Y.; Yang, L.; Chen, L.; Dai, W.; Wu, Q.; Yuan, S. Genome mining and biosynthetic pathways of marine-derived fungal bioactive natural products. Front. Microbiol. 2024, 15, 1520446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Richman, E.K.; Hutchison, J.E. The Nanomaterial Characterization Bottleneck. ACS Nano 2009, 3, 2441–2446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Schüller, A.; Studt-Reinhold, L.; Strauss, J. How to Completely Squeeze a Fungus—Advanced Genome Mining Tools for Novel Bioactive Substances. Pharmaceutics 2022, 14, 1837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wang, D.; Jin, S.; Lu, Q.; Chen, Y. Advances and Challenges in CRISPR/Cas-Based Fungal Genome Engineering for Secondary Metabolite Production: A Review. J. Fungi 2023, 9, 362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Moreno-Giménez, E.; Gandía, M.; Sáez, Z.; Manzanares, P.; Yenush, L.; Orzáez, D.; Marcos, J.F.; Garrigues, S. FungalBraid 2.0: Expanding the synthetic biology toolbox for the biotechnological exploitation of filamentous fungi. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2023, 11, 1222812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Nødvig, C.S.; Nielsen, J.B.; Kogle, M.E.; Mortensen, U.H. A CRISPR-Cas9 System for Genetic Engineering of Filamentous Fungi. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0133085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Blount, B.A.; Weenink, T.; Vasylechko, S.; Ellis, T. Rational Diversification of a Promoter Providing Fine-Tuned Expression and Orthogonal Regulation for Synthetic Biology. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e33279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. De Schutter, K.; Taning, C.N.T.; Van Daele, L.; Van Damme, E.J.M.; Dubruel, P.; Smagghe, G. RNAi-Based Biocontrol Products: Market Status, Regulatory Aspects, and Risk Assessment. Front. Insect Sci. 2021, 1, 818037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Welch, K.; Pierce, A.; Mendelsohn, M. Regulation of RNAi in Pesticidal Products in the United States. In RNA Interference in Agriculture: Basic Science to Applications; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2025; pp. 633–645. [Google Scholar]
  48. Bocos-Asenjo, I.T.; Amin, H.; Mosquera, S.; Díez-Hermano, S.; Ginésy, M.; Diez, J.J.; Niño-Sánchez, J. Spray-Induced Gene Silencing (SIGS) as a Tool for the Management of Pine Pitch Canker Forest Disease. Plant Dis. 2025, 109, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Zhu, S.; Xu, H.; Liu, Y.; Hong, Y.; Yang, H.; Zhou, C.; Tao, L. Computational advances in biosynthetic gene cluster discovery and prediction. Biotechnol. Adv. 2025, 79, 108532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Islam, M.T.; Sherif, S.M. RNAi-Based Biofungicides as a Promising Next-Generation Strategy for Controlling Devastating Gray Mold Diseases. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 2072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Koch, A.; Biedenkopf, D.; Furch, A.; Weber, L.; Rossbach, O.; Abdellatef, E.; Linicus, L.; Johannsmeier, J.; Jelonek, L.; Goesmann, A.; et al. An RNAi-Based Control of Fusarium graminearum Infections Through Spraying of Long dsRNAs Involves a Plant Passage and Is Controlled by the Fungal Silencing Machinery. PLoS Pathog. 2016, 12, e1005901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Parker, K.M.; Barragán Borrero, V.; van Leeuwen, D.M.; Lever, M.A.; Mateescu, B.; Sander, M. Environmental Fate of RNA Interference Pesticides: Adsorption and Degradation of Double-Stranded RNA Molecules in Agricultural Soils. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 53, 3027–3036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Galli, M.; Imani, J.; Kogel, K.-H. Labeling of dsRNA for Fungal Uptake Detection Analysis. In RNA Tagging: Methods and Protocols; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 227–238. [Google Scholar]
  54. Wytinck, N.; Manchur, C.L.; Li, V.H.; Whyard, S.; Belmonte, M.F. dsRNA Uptake in Plant Pests and Pathogens: Insights into RNAi-Based Insect and Fungal Control Technology. Plants 2020, 9, 1780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Verdonckt, T.-W.; Vanden Broeck, J. Methods for the Cost-Effective Production of Bacteria-Derived Double-Stranded RNA for in vitro Knockdown Studies. Front. Physiol. 2022, 13, 836106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ongvarrasopone, C.; Roshorm, Y.; Panyim, S. A Simple and Cost Effective Method to Generate dsRNA for RNAi Studies in Invertebrates. ScienceAsia 2007, 33, 035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mu, F.; Xie, J.; Cheng, S.; You, M.P.; Barbetti, M.J.; Jia, J.; Wang, Q.; Cheng, J.; Fu, Y.; Chen, T.; et al. Virome Characterization of a Collection of S. sclerotiorum from Australia. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 8, 2540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Kogan, M. Integrated Pest Management: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Developments. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1998, 43, 243–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Vandenkoornhuyse, P.; Quaiser, A.; Duhamel, M.; Le Van, A.; Dufresne, A. The importance of the microbiome of the plant holobiont. New Phytol. 2015, 206, 1196–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Todorović, I.; Moënne-Loccoz, Y.; Raičević, V.; Jovičić-Petrović, J.; Muller, D. Microbial diversity in soils suppressive to Fusarium diseases. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1228749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Whangbo, J.S.; Weisman, A.S.; Chae, J.; Hunter, C.P. SID-1 Domains Important for dsRNA Import in Caenorhabditis elegans. G3 Genes|Genomes|Genet. 2017, 7, 3887–3899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Montgomery, M.K.; Xu, S.; Fire, A. RNA as a target of double-stranded RNA-mediated genetic interference in Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1998, 95, 15502–15507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lundgren, J.G.; Duan, J.J. RNAi-Based Insecticidal Crops: Potential Effects on Nontarget Species. Bioscience 2013, 63, 657–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Fletcher, S.J.; Lawrence, J.; Sawyer, A.; Manzie, N.; Gardiner, D.M.; Mitter, N.; Brosnan, C.A. dsRNAmax: A multi-target chimeric dsRNA designer for safe and effective crop protection. NAR Genom. Bioinform. 2025, 7, lqaf064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Riedling, O.; Walker, A.S.; Rokas, A. Predicting fungal secondary metabolite activity from biosynthetic gene cluster data using machine learning. Microbiol. Spectr. 2024, 12, e03400-23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 2. Global Biofungicide Market Trends and Projections (2020–2030). This chart illustrates the historical and projected growth of the global biofungicide market. The y-axis represents Market Value in USD Billions, and the x-axis represents the Year. The chart shows a steep upward trend, starting from a value of USD 1.6 billion in 2020 and projecting to over USD 5 billion by 2030, reflecting a strong CAGR. Data synthesized from multiple market intelligence reports [28,29].
Figure 2. Global Biofungicide Market Trends and Projections (2020–2030). This chart illustrates the historical and projected growth of the global biofungicide market. The y-axis represents Market Value in USD Billions, and the x-axis represents the Year. The chart shows a steep upward trend, starting from a value of USD 1.6 billion in 2020 and projecting to over USD 5 billion by 2030, reflecting a strong CAGR. Data synthesized from multiple market intelligence reports [28,29].
Agrochemicals 04 00018 g002
Table 1. Comparative Analysis of Fungicide Technologies.
Table 1. Comparative Analysis of Fungicide Technologies.
FeatureConventional Synthetic FungicidesBotanical ExtractsMicrobial BCAsSynBio-Derived MoleculesRNAi-Based FungicidesReferences
SpecificityBroad to ModerateBroad to ModerateStrain/Species-SpecificHigh (molecular target)Exquisite (gene target)[7,12,13,16,17]
Mode of ActionSingle/multiple biochemical targetMultiple targets, often pleiotropicCompetition, antibiosis, parasitismSpecific, engineered biochemical targetPost-transcriptional gene silencing[8,12,13,17,18]
Resistance RiskHigh to ModerateLowLow to ModerateModerate to LowVery Low (potential for multiple targets)[7,12,13,16]
Environmental ImpactPersistence, non-target effectsLow persistence, possible non-target toxicityMinimal, ecosystem-specificBiodegradable, low non-target impactBiodegradable, no non-target impact[9,12,13,19,20]
Scalability/ConsistencyHighLow to ModerateLowHighHigh (dsRNA production)[3,12,14,21,22]
Development CostVery HighModerateModerate to HighHigh (initially), then decreasingHigh (initially), then decreasing[3,6,12,23,24]
Regulatory FrameworkEstablishedVariable, often simplerComplex, strain-specificEmerging, evolvingEmerging, evolving[7,12,14,25,26]
Table 2. Promising Fungal Taxa for Antifungal Genome Mining.
Table 2. Promising Fungal Taxa for Antifungal Genome Mining.
Fungal GroupKey GeneraClasses of Secondary MetabolitesNoteworthy Bioactivity/NoveltyReference
Endophytic FungiAspergillus, Penicillium, FusariumPolyketides, NRPS, Terpenoids, AlkaloidsProlific source of bioactive compounds with diverse applications[33]
Marine-Derived FungiAspergillus, Penicillium, AcremoniumPolyketides, Alkaloids (often halogenated)Unique chemical structures adapted to extreme environments[39]
Lichenized FungiUmbilicariaPKS, NRPSHighly divergent BGCs suggesting novel chemical scaffolds[32]
Known Biocontrol GeneraEpicoccum, TrichodermaPolyketides, Diketopiperazines (DKPs), PeptidesProven antifungal activity against pathogens like B. cinerea[37]
ExtremophilesVariousCompounds adapted to extreme conditionsPotential for novel, stable enzymes and molecules[17]
Associated BacteriaPseudomonas, StreptomycesLipopeptides, Polyketides, AlkaloidsRich source of antifungal compounds discovered through genome mining[31]
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Coca-Ruiz, V. The Fungal Biorevolution: A Trifecta of Genome Mining, Synthetic Biology, and RNAi for Next-Generation Fungicides. Agrochemicals 2025, 4, 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/agrochemicals4040018

AMA Style

Coca-Ruiz V. The Fungal Biorevolution: A Trifecta of Genome Mining, Synthetic Biology, and RNAi for Next-Generation Fungicides. Agrochemicals. 2025; 4(4):18. https://doi.org/10.3390/agrochemicals4040018

Chicago/Turabian Style

Coca-Ruiz, Víctor. 2025. "The Fungal Biorevolution: A Trifecta of Genome Mining, Synthetic Biology, and RNAi for Next-Generation Fungicides" Agrochemicals 4, no. 4: 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/agrochemicals4040018

APA Style

Coca-Ruiz, V. (2025). The Fungal Biorevolution: A Trifecta of Genome Mining, Synthetic Biology, and RNAi for Next-Generation Fungicides. Agrochemicals, 4(4), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/agrochemicals4040018

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop