Review Special Issues

Chitinase-producing bacteria and their role in biocontrol

  • Chitin is an important component of the exteriors of insects and fungi. Upon degradation of chitin by a number of organisms, severe damage and even death may occur in pathogens and pests whose external surfaces contain this polymer. Currently, chemical fungicides and insecticides are the major means of controlling these disease-causing agents. However, due to the potential harm that these chemicals cause to the environment and to human and animal health, new strategies are being developed to replace or reduce the use of fungal- and pest-killing compounds in agriculture. In this context, chitinolytic microorganisms are likely to play an important role as biocontrol agents and pathogen antagonists and may also function in the control of postharvest rot. In this review, we discuss the literature concerning chitin and the basic knowledge of chitin-degrading enzymes, and also describe the biocontrol effects of chitinolytic microorganisms and their potential use as more sustainable pesticides and fungicides in the field.

    Citation: Esteban A. Veliz, Pilar Martínez-Hidalgo, Ann M. Hirsch. Chitinase-producing bacteria and their role in biocontrol[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 689-705. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.689

    Related Papers:

    [1] Esther Menendez, Paula Garcia-Fraile . Plant probiotic bacteria: solutions to feed the world. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 502-524. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.502
    [2] Rudoviko Galileya Medison, Litao Tan, Milca Banda Medison, Kenani Edward Chiwina . Use of beneficial bacterial endophytes: A practical strategy to achieve sustainable agriculture. AIMS Microbiology, 2022, 8(4): 624-643. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022040
    [3] Shubhra Singh, Douglas J. H. Shyu . Perspective on utilization of Bacillus species as plant probiotics for different crops in adverse conditions. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(1): 220-238. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024011
    [4] Stephen T. Abedon . Active bacteriophage biocontrol and therapy on sub-millimeter scales towards removal of unwanted bacteria from foods and microbiomes. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 649-688. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.649
    [5] Nilde Antonella Di Benedetto, Maria Rosaria Corbo, Daniela Campaniello, Mariagrazia Pia Cataldi, Antonio Bevilacqua, Milena Sinigaglia, Zina Flagella . The role of Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria in improving nitrogen use efficiency for sustainable crop production: a focus on wheat. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 413-434. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.413
    [6] Ariel J. Santiago, Maria L. Burgos-Garay, Leila Kartforosh, Mustafa Mazher, Rodney M. Donlan . Bacteriophage treatment of carbapenemase-producing Klebsiella pneumoniae in a multispecies biofilm: a potential biocontrol strategy for healthcare facilities. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(1): 43-63. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020003
    [7] Luciana Porto de Souza Vandenberghe, Lina Marcela Blandon Garcia, Cristine Rodrigues, Marcela Cândido Camara, Gilberto Vinícius de Melo Pereira, Juliana de Oliveira, Carlos Ricardo Soccol . Potential applications of plant probiotic microorganisms in agriculture and forestry. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 629-648. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.629
    [8] George P. Stamou, Sotiris Konstadinou, Nikolaos Monokrousos, Anna Mastrogianni, Michalis Orfanoudakis, Christos Hassiotis, Urania Menkissoglu-Spiroudi, Despoina Vokou, Efimia M. Papatheodorou . The effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and essential oil on soil microbial community and N-related enzymes during the fungal early colonization phase. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(4): 938-959. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.4.938
    [9] Gulsanam Mardonova, Vyacheslav Shurigin, Farkhod Eshboev, Dilfuza Egamberdieva . Potential plant benefits of endophytic microorganisms associated with halophyte Glycyrrhiza glabra L.. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(4): 859-879. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024037
    [10] Luis R. Silva, Catarina Bento, Ana Carolina Gonçalves, José David Flores-Félix, Martha Helena Ramírez-Bahena, Alvaro Peix, Encarna Velázquez . Legume bioactive compounds: influence of rhizobial inoculation. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(2): 267-278. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.2.267
  • Chitin is an important component of the exteriors of insects and fungi. Upon degradation of chitin by a number of organisms, severe damage and even death may occur in pathogens and pests whose external surfaces contain this polymer. Currently, chemical fungicides and insecticides are the major means of controlling these disease-causing agents. However, due to the potential harm that these chemicals cause to the environment and to human and animal health, new strategies are being developed to replace or reduce the use of fungal- and pest-killing compounds in agriculture. In this context, chitinolytic microorganisms are likely to play an important role as biocontrol agents and pathogen antagonists and may also function in the control of postharvest rot. In this review, we discuss the literature concerning chitin and the basic knowledge of chitin-degrading enzymes, and also describe the biocontrol effects of chitinolytic microorganisms and their potential use as more sustainable pesticides and fungicides in the field.


    1. Introduction

    Chitin in nature is both abundant and widespread. Indeed, it is one of the most abundant biopolymers on Earth, second only to cellulose. Chitin is found in many organisms, including the shells, exoskeletons, and gut linings of arthropods (crustaceans and insects). It also comprises the cell walls of many fungi, including some yeasts, and makes up the structural frameworks of certain Protista as well as of nematode eggs. Many microbial genomes possess different genes encoding chitinolytic enzymes, which have been extensively investigated, but studies regarding the use of microorganisms that utilize insoluble chitin as a carbon source in the area of biotechnology are sparse [1].

    According to previous studies, approximately 35% of crop yields are lost to diseases in the field, and postharvest losses average closer to 15% of the total yields [2]. The main causes of the losses are insects, weeds, and diseases. Consequently, crops worldwide are completely dependent on the use of fungicides and pesticides to reduce loss, but the major problem of using these chemicals is that the target organisms often develop resistance to them. Management strategies can mitigate this effect, but they by no means completely prevent resistance from evolving [3]. The impact of pesticides in the environment on non-target organisms, as well as on human health, has been extensively studied with worrying results. Leaching of fungicides into the ground water damages both aquatic environments and drinking water resources [4] and many human health problems have been linked to pesticide use [5]. Recently, a study on honey has found that the samples contained pesticides [6]. Public concern about these chemical residues as well as the development of fungicide resistance by pathogens have prompted the development of alternative approaches to control both pre-and postharvest diseases [3].

    Microorganisms produce numerous hydrolytic enzymes, and among them are chitinases. Actinobacteria are well known for their chitinolytic enzyme production and activity like Firmicutes [7] as are certain Proteobacteria [8]. Microbial chitinases weaken and degrade the cell walls of many pests and pathogens, thereby exhibiting antibacterial, anti-fungal, insecticidal, or nematicidal activity [9]. Chitinolytic enzymes will become a more obvious and important solution towards overcoming the environmental and human hazards that result from the application of synthetic pesticides and fungicides. Thus, chitinolytic microorganisms have promise as replacements for the more harmful practices of applying insect-and fungal-killing chemicals.

    In this review, we aim to increase the understanding of the role of chitinases in the effect of bacterial inoculants. We analyze the literature on chitin-degrading enzymes in microorganisms that have potential as biocontrol agents, and describe the different uses and modes of action that a microbial inoculant should have against pathogens, not only in the field, but also relative to postharvest storage. We also describe several assays for screening previously under-studied microbial species for chitinolytic activity in order to facilitate their characterization and use in place of pesticides.


    2. Chitin and Its Hydrolysis

    Given the abundance of chitin in nature, the study of its hydrolysis is an interesting topic not only for basic knowledge but also because of the applications of the findings in formulation of inoculants. Chitin is functionally and structurally similar to cellulose (Figure 1). Whereas chitin is a linear homopolymer of (1→4) β-linked N-acetyl-D-glucosamine (GlcNAc) residues, cellulose is composed of glucose monomers. The GlcNAc residues differ from glucose in that an acetyl amino group replaces the hydroxyl at the C-2 position. Chitin is also similar to the structural polymer, murein, which consists of alternating GlcNAc and N-acetylmuramic acid monomers.

    Figure 1. 2D structure of N-Acetylglucosamine.

    Chitin exists in three crystalline forms: α-, β-, and γ-chitin, which differ in the arrangement of polymer chains, giving them different mechanical properties [10]. The different chains cross-link to other structural polymers such as proteins and β-glucans to provide rigidity and strength [11]. In the environment, chitin is found in various degrees of deacetylation, from fully acetylated chitin to its completely deacetylated form, which is known as chitosan [8]. Because of the ubiquity of chitin in the environment, its degradation has been extensively reviewed with regard to general biochemistry, molecular biology, biogeochemistry, and microbial ecology [8,12,13,14].

    The degradation of chitin is catalyzed by chitinases, which are found in the organisms containing chitin, mainly insects, crustaceans, and fungi. Moreover these enzymes are also detected in viruses, bacteria, archaea, Protista, higher plants, and animals. Chitinases serve various functions in these organisms, such as in morphogenesis, nutrient cycling, and also in defense against chitin-containing pests and parasites [15,16]. Chitinolytic bacteria decompose chitin in both aerobic and anaerobic conditions and are found in a wide range of habitats. In marine environments, they are involved in the nutrient cycling of the sizeable amount of chitin derived from arthropod shells and other sources [17]. In the soil and rhizosphere, bacteria use chitin from insects and fungi as a carbon and nitrogen source [13,18].

    Because of the structural similarity of chitin and cellulose, the chitinolytic and cellulolytic pathways follow parallel steps. Chitin hydrolysis consists of first cleaving the polymer into water-soluble oligomers, followed by splitting of these oligomers into dimers by another enzyme, which splits the dimers into monomers. This process involves an endo-acting chitinase (EC 3.2.1.14), which randomly hydrolyzes chitin and the resulting oligomers, releasing a mixture of end products of different sizes. However, this enzyme is unable to break down the molecules beyond diacetylchitobiose. On the other hand, β-N-acetylhexosaminidases (EC 3.2.1.52) are exo-acting, and cleave chitin oligomers and also chitin from the non-reducing end. It is the only enzyme that can cleave diacetylchitobiose. However, the nomenclature for the enzymes currently classified as β-N-acetylhexosaminidases is not completely agreed upon. In the past, the naming system more closely paralleled the classification and the mechanisms used for the cellulolytic enzymes. Now the classification of β-N-acetylhexosaminidase (nagZ) encompasses many exo-acting chitinolytic enzymes, which were previously reported to have different affinities, such as those with activity towards small oligomers or long chain polymers [19,20].

    Based on amino acid sequence, chitinases are grouped into different glycoside hydrolase (GH) families, e.g., GH18, GH19, and GH20. GH18 endochitinases are found in bacteria, fungi, and animals; some plant chitinases also fall into this group. Most bacterial chitinases belong to the GH18 family [12]. Bacterial GH18 chitinases are separated into three major subfamilies, A, B, and C, based on amino acid sequence homology of the individual catalytic domains [21]. Each chitinase is thought to have different, albeit complementary mechanisms [22]. Family GH19 endochitinases are primarily found in plants although they are also detected in bacteria, particularly actinobacteria, green non-sulfur (Chloroflexi), and purple (Chromatiales and Rhodospirillaceae) bacteria [23,24,25]. Plant GH19 chitinases are thought to be part of the defense mechanism against fungal pathogens [23]. Because GH families 18 and 19 do not share sequence similarity, 3D structure, or molecular mechanisms, they are thought to have evolved as separate lineages [15]. Based on amino acid sequence analysis, GH19 chitinases in Actinobacteria are related to plant class Ⅳ chitinases. They appear to have originated as plant chitinases, and bacteria may have acquired them through horizontal gene transfer [23,24]. Several actinobacteria have been reported to contain GH19 chitinases [24], often in combination with GH18 chitinases. Further analysis of gene sequences indicate that an ancestor of the Streptomycineae first acquired a chitinase from plants and later passed it on to other actinobacteria [23]. Streptomyces, which has both GH18 and GH19 families, show different chitinolytic efficiencies on different substrates (GH18 on crystalline substrates, and GH19 on soluble substrates), but only the GH19 chitinases have antifungal properties [23]. On the other hand, β-N-acetylhexosaminidases are exo-acting chitinolytic enzymes that remove monosaccharides from the non-reducing ends of chitin [11,15].

    The chitinolytic machinery of bacteria also consists of chitin-binding proteins (CBPs), which with the chitinases [26], work together [27]. Based on the analysis of a variety of genomes, family 33 CBPs are produced by most chitinolytic bacteria [28]. Manjeet et al. [26] described synergisms between GH18 chitinases and chitin-binding proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis and Serratia marescens when tested in combinations with one another, whereas the hydrolytic ability of GH18 chitinases from Bacillus licheniformis did not depend on such an interaction. These data agree with the results of Vaaje-Kolstad et al. [28] that CBPs from the same or different organisms can enhance the hydrolytic activity of chitinases on isolated pure substrates.

    An alternative pathway involves the deacetylation of chitin to chitosan, which is then broken down to glucosamine residues by chitosanase (EC 3.2.1.132). Chitosanase hydrolyzes β-1,4-glycosidic bonds in polymers that are difficult to break down, turning them into low molecular weight compounds, which are easier to degrade. Chitinases and chitosanases overlap in substrate specificity, but differ in efficiency based on the degree of deacetylation. Cellulases also break down chitosan and bind chitin, but it has not been shown whether these enzymes actually hydrolyze chitin [8].

    Glucose and most other hexose and pentose sugars, except arabinose, are inhibitors of chitinase [29,30,31]. Other sugars such as pectose and cellulose have been shown to induce a higher expression of chitinases, and divalent cations either inhibit or activate chitinases. Some known divalent cation chitinase inhibitors are Hg2+, Cu2+, Co2+, and Mn2+ [30,32] whereas Mg2+, Ba2+ and Ca2+ are reported to be activators [29,32].


    3. Chitinolytic Microorganisms as Sustainable Alternatives to Chemical Pesticides in Pathogen Control

    Among the bacteria used as biocontrol agents, the primary ones are species of Streptomyces, Bacillus, and Pseudomonas [33]. Given the number of chitinolytic bacteria being studied, coupled with the fact that the current strategies for pathogen control are harmful, the idea of formulating new pesticides that consist of biocontrol bacteria offer potential solutions. The damaging effects of pesticides on the environment are well established and described in the literature. Not only do these chemicals affect organisms in the ecosystem besides the target organisms, but they also have the ability to move within and outside of the location of application [34]. Moreover, laboratory studies performed by [35] showed a decrease in microbial activity when pesticides were added to the soil in high quantities. In some cases, the microbial activity could not be recovered.

    Chitinases have also been demonstrated to affect insect growth; both feeding rate and body weight of larvae decrease if they are in contact with chitinases, which ultimately leads to death. These symptoms are attributed to the weakening of the peritrophic membrane that lines the gut epithelium of the larvae, the main component of which is chitin [36]. Brandt et al. [37] observed that the Orgyia pseudotsugata peritrophic membrane was degraded by chitinases and later this effect was also observed in vivo with Spodoptera littoralis and E. coli that expressed the endochitinase ChiAII from Serratia marescens [38].

    More recent studies have focused on the search for alternatives to chemical pesticides and B. thuringiensis toxin in response to the development of resistance to both agents by insects or pathogenic fungi. To this end, bacteria from different orders have been found to be effective biocontrol agents.


    3.1. Actinobacteria

    Actinobacteria are important saprophytic soil bacteria, which are known for antibiotic and secondary metabolite production, as well as for the synthesis of chitinolytic enzymes [39]. They are among the most important taxa in the soil microbial chitinolytic community [40,41]. Bai et al. [42] found that almost half of the terrestrial chitinase-containing bacterial genomes they analyzed from public databases belonged to the Actinobacteria.

    Streptomyces species, which have been thoroughly studied, decompose solid chitin pieces rapidly, in large part because of their ability to penetrate these substrates with their hyphae [42,43]. A Streptomyces rimosus strain isolated from agricultural soil in the center of Poland was found to use various chitinous substances, e.g., chitosan and shrimp waste, as nutrient sources [19]. Kawase et al. [44] described a Streptomyces coelicolor with 13 distinct chitinases: 11 GH18 types (A, B, and C) and two GH19 chitinases. Other actinobacteria have also been found to produce a number of chitinases. For example, Nocardiopsis prasina secreted three chitinases, ChiA, ChiB, and ChiBΔ in the presence of chitin [45]. The catalytic domain of the ChiB protein was found to be similar to GH19 chitinases from Streptomyces and, as expected with GH19 type chitinases, had high antifungal activity.

    As described earlier, Streptomyces is one of the most studied genera in terms of chitinase activity, but many other actinobacteria have similar abilities although they are not as well studied. The purified chitinase of Streptomyces rimosus exhibited in vitro antifungal properties against Fusarium solani and Alternaria alternata [19]. Similarly, Streptomyces viridificans efficiently lysed the fungal cell walls of Rhizoctonia, Colletotrichum, Aspergillus, Fusarium, Sclerotinia, Curvularia, and Pythium in vitro [30]. Among the Streptomyces species isolated from rhizosphere soils, [46] found that S. hygroscopicus was antagonistic towards Colletotrichum gloeosporioides and Sclerotium rolfsii. Culture filtrates obtained at a growth phase when chitinase and β-1,3-glucanase production were highest were the most effective fungal inhibitors.

    Actinomycete isolates from soil samples in Jordan exhibited in vitro fungicidal activity against mycelial growth and sclerotia formation of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, when they synthesized chitinase. However, isolates that did not produce chitinase showed only a fungistatic effect [47]. Purified GH18 chitinase from Streptomyces roseolus had a marked inhibitory effect on fungal hyphal extensions [32].

    Two chitinolytic streptomycetes showed in vitro inhibitory effect on mycelial growth of Rhizoctonia solani, which upon infection elicits sugar beet damping-off disease. Soil treatment with either isolate inhibited the disease completely, and significantly improved seedling growth in both infected and uninfected conditions. Compared to the controls, all treatments containing bacteria had increased shoot and root dry biomass [48]. Gherbawy and collaborators [49] found seven strains that synthesized GH19 chitinases with antifungal properties against one or more of the following fungi: Fusarium oxysporum, Pythium aristosporum, Colletotrichum gossypii, and Rhizoctonia solani.

    Streptomyces viridodiasticus also produced one or more antifungal metabolites that significantly reduced the growth of the pathogen in vitro. When living mycelial mats of Sclerotinia minor grown in a carbon-free salt solution were inoculated with S. viridodiasticus isolates, all three actinobacterial isolates caused extensive hyphal plasmolysis and cell wall lysis. Furthermore, the isolates, individually or in combination, significantly reduced disease incidence under controlled greenhouse conditions [50]. Streptomyces cavourensis was found to be a potential biocontrol agent of anthracnose in pepper, mainly due to a combined effect of chitinolytic enzymes and an antifungal compound, 2-furancarboxaldehyde [51].


    3.2. Firmicutes

    Bacillus thuringiensis is a well-known biocontrol agent that has been in use for decades for pest control in agriculture and for the control of disease-related insect vectors.

    Many B. thuringiensis strains that constitutively express chitinase have been described [7,52]. Hollensteiner et al. [53] isolated Bacillus thuringiensis isolates from tomato roots; the isolates exhibited in vitro antifungal activity against Verticillium spp. Only the isolates that carried one or two genes encoding putative chitinases inhibited growth. All the isolates possessed genes encoding the antifungal siderophore bacillibactin, and one isolate had a gene encoding the antibiotic zwittermicin A, suggesting that these chitinolytic bacteria possess multiple antifungal mechanisms [53]. Prassana et al. [54] studied a Brevibacillus laterosporus that had two chitinolytic enzymes with GH18 domains, but with different C-terminal domains. The latter determine different substrate specificity to enable efficient hydrolysis.

    Interestingly, some studies also report a synergistic effect between Bacillus thuringiensis endotoxins and chitinases [38,55], suggesting that mixed formulas consisting of bacterial consortia for inoculation could be more effective than single strains for biocontrol. B. thuringiensis synthesizes two chitinases that enhanced the insecticidal activity of Bt crystal protein against larvae of Spodoptera exigua and Helicoverpa armigera and almost completely inhibited the germination of R. solani and B. cinerea spores [7,56].

    Li et al. [57] isolated Bacillus cereus from the rhizosphere of eggplant. Using bacterial suspensions, supernatants, and a diluted chitinase solution, these researchers found that all three effectively suppressed germination of fungal spores. In greenhouse experiments, the supernatant and the purified enzymes were less effective than an application of a suspension of the strain's cells in reducing the severity of Verticillium wilt on eggplant; the cell suspension reduced the symptoms by 70% in 14 days.

    Another firmicute, Bacillus pumilus, also was shown to have excellent chitinolytic activity. It was effective not only against several genera of pathogenic fungi of agronomical importance, but it also inhibited the growth of Scirpophaga incertulas, a rice pest [58].

    Paenibacillus illinoisensis isolated from coastal soil in Korea was reported to have strong in vitro chitinolytic activity when assayed on colloidal chitin. It also deformed and destroyed the eggshell of the root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita) [59]. Singh et al. [60] found that Paenibacillus sp. D1, which was a high producer of chitinase, could be used to control Helicoverpa armigera. The use of this strain resulted in a 40% mortality of the larvae, and when combined with acephate (a pesticide), a synergistic effect was observed.


    3.3. Proteobacteria

    In addition to microbes mentioned earlier, numerous other proteobacteria are positive biocontrol agents and have been studied in depth.

    The chitinolytic system of Serratia marescens has been extensively studied [28]. S. marescens produces several GH18 chitinases—ChiA, ChiB, ChiC1, and ChiC2—the latter resulting from a post-translational modification of ChiC1 [8,61,62]. These enzymes have different mechanisms of action, which allow for more efficient hydrolysis of chitin [62].

    Purified endochitinase and chitobiase of Serratia marescens inhibited Botrytis cinerea conidiospores and distorted germ tube development in vitro. Prodigiosin, the red pigment produced by S. marescens, enhanced inhibition when added together with chitinases [63]. This pigment is also involved in the control of damping-off disease of cucumber, which is caused by Phytophthora capsici. Mutants that were defective in prodigiosin synthesis did not have a significant effect on disease symptoms [64].

    Strains from the genus Enterobacter also inhibited the growth of certain pathogens. Characterized and selected by their chitinase production, the Enterobacter spp. were assayed against the common cocoa leaf pathogen, Colletotrichum gloeosporioides. Results in vitro showed that the fungal hyphae grew in aberrant shapes and were broken or lysed, which was most likely caused by chitinase activity. In vivo assays demonstrated a decreased severity of the disease [65].

    Among the bacteria that had been isolated from the surface horizon of a brown podzolic soil in Ireland and screened for chitinolytic activity, Stenotrophomonas and Chromobacterium were found to inhibit egg hatch of the potato cyst nematode (Globodera rostochiensis) in vitro and in soil microcosms planted with potato seed tubers [66].

    Many chitinolytic bacteria have other plant-growth promoting properties as well. One example is a Pseudomonas sp. with in vitro antifungal chitinolytic activity, which was shown to enhance nodulation in chickpea [67]. A GH18 chitinase isolated from another Pseudomonas sp., which had high amino acid sequence identity with chitinases of Serratia marescens, showed little insecticidal activity towards Spodoptera litura larvae, but increased the insecticidal toxicity of Spodoptera litura nucleopolyhedrovirus [68].

    Other taxa have also been studied for their production of chitinases, but have received much less attention, e.g., Flavobacterium johnsoniae described by Kharade and McBride [69]. Of five potential chitinases in this species, the authors studied one in depth that had two GH18 domains and that was secreted by a type Ⅸ secretion system.

    Certain species interactions, as mentioned earlier for the interactions between chitinases and CBPs from different bacteria [26], play a role in chitinolytic efficiencies. Quorum sensing, which is mediated by N-acyl homoserine lactone (AHL) signaling molecules, often regulates enzyme production in gram-negative bacteria. Multiple families of quorum sensing molecules (e.g., N-butanoyl-L-homoserine lactone (BHL) and N-hexanoyl-L-homoserine lactone (HHL)) interactively regulate gene expression in P. aeruginosa [70]. In Chromobacterium violaceum, HHL mutants were defective in hydrolyzing colloidal chitin when grown in a minimal medium containing the polymer, but could hydrolyze it when the mutant was supplemented with culture supernatant from the wild-type strain or with HHL itself [71]. A chitobiase, now classified as β-N-acetylhexosaminidase, with a high specificity to dimers and also two other β-N-acetylhexosaminidases of 172 and 133 kDa, as well as two endochitinases of 108 and 67 kDa, and a chitobiosidase of 56 kDa were detected by SDS-PAGE [71].


    4. Uses of Chitinolytic Microbes for Postharvest Disease Control in Crops

    Although biocontrol in the field is important to avoid crop loses because postharvest disease has a large economical impact, the use of many common pesticides causes serious health problems. Thus it is important to explore new alternatives for postharvest disease control that reduce economic loss and have no negative effects on human health. Other important factors to be considered are the emergence of resistances by the pathogens and the stringent regulation of pesticide use and disposal, which leads to the need for new solutions to these problems [72].


    4.1. Direct methods

    Chitinolytic microorganisms have been used as biocontrol agents for several crops with promising results. Postharvest diseases have major economic consequences on fruit production. Other crops are equally sensitive to pathogenic fungi and insects upon being transported or stored. The need for alternatives to chemical pesticides is critical towards overcoming postharvest disease.

    Bacillus spp. that produce chitinases have been used as postharvest biocontrol agents. Bacillus subtilis isolates with chitinase activity yielded up to 83% inhibition of Fusarium oxysporum and Botryodiplodia theobromae infection in yam. Scanning electron microscopy confirmed the complete lysis of the fungal cell wall after 36 hours. The breakdown of the cell walls was hypothesized to be caused by chitinase production [73]. B. subtilis strain J9 was suggested to control B. cinerea on strawberry under postharvest conditions as a result of its effective chitinase production [74]. Another example is Bacillus cereus, which can augement its chitinase expression up to 46.9%, resulting in a reduction of disease in peach caused by Rhizopus stolonifer. Peach is a particularly difficult fruit to store because of its high sugar levels and sensitivity to postharvest diseases [75].


    4.2. Indirect methods

    Besides direct inhibition of the postharvest pathogens by chitinase-synthesizing microbes, some organisms cause defense responses via indirect mechanisms, i.e. by inducing the plant to activate its own defense program. Various pathogen-related (PR) proteins, β-1,3-glucanase and chitinases, have been found to play an important part in plant defense against pathogens, and are associated with the systemic acquired resistance response in plants [9]. For example, chitinase production is often enhanced in fruits. Zhang et al. [76] found that apple chitinase production and other defense-related responses were augmented when the stored fruit was inoculated with Streptomyces rochei A-1 and challenged with the pathogen Botryosphaeria dothidea.

    Knowledge about biocontrol has also been applied to transgenic plants, where expression of two combined PR genes, one of them coding for a chitinase, conferred a higher level of resistance than the expression of a single gene. In particular, transgenic carrot, expressing PR-3, which codes for a chitinase, together with expression of a β-1,3-glucanase gene, was found to confer resistance against several pathogens [77].


    4.3. Chitin soil amendment

    Besides the methods that could substitute for or reduce the use of chemicals for pest and pathogen control described above, other options, based on the responses of the soil microbiome, are available. Soil amendment with chitin and its effects have been studied for a long time. Buxton and colleagues [78] found that chitin amendments decreased the severity of disease caused by Fusarium oxysporum in a pea field. The F. oxysporum population decreased after the amendment, whereas the number of Actinobacteria increased. Several more recent studies show that amending soil with chitin, which selects for the chitinolytic bacteria in the soil resulting in an increase of their numbers, prevents disease. Cretoiu et al. [79], who investigated the long-term effect of chitin amendments in agricultural soil where potato, lily, and wheat were sown during the experiment, showed that fields amended with chitin suppressed the growth of Verticillium dahliae and Pratylenchus sp. Their abundance decreased 10 times compared to the unamended soil. This suppression could be related to the 10-fold increase in the microbial density of the soil, in particular, the density of chitinolytic bacteria. Enriching the numbers of chitinolytic bacteria to increase the population of biocontrol agents against chitin-containing plant pathogens (e.g., fungi and nematodes) would be a fruitful strategy. Other studies that analyzed the effect of chitin soil amendments on microbial abundance support these findings, such as that of Jacquiod et al. [80] who measured the enrichment of two known chitinolytic taxa, actinobacteria and gamma-proteobacteria, after amending soil with chitin.


    5. Chitinase Increase in the Soil and the Effect in the Ecosystem

    We earlier discussed the advantages of using chitinolytic bacteria in agricultural soil instead of chemical pesticides. However, whether or not an increase in chitinases in soil would affect beneficial fungal and insect populations has to be addressed. On this topic, Vázquez and collaborators [82] studied the effect of fungal antagonist inoculations on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. In their study, none of the bacterial inoculations caused any decrease in growth of the fungi, although they all produced chitinases. Moreover, chitinase production did not vary whether the inoculants were coinoculated with the fungi or not. Vauramo and associates [82] described the use of chitinase-producing transgenic Betula pendula, which did not affect leaf litter microbial composition. Eight chitinase transgenic birch lines were used with similar results, strongly suggesting that an increase in chitinases does not affect soil community.


    6. Screening for Chitinase Activity

    To detect bacterial strains that produce chitinase for use in agriculture or biocontrol means that reliable tests for chitinase activity must be performed. We describe a few of the more commonly used methodologies. Some of the simplest methods include incorporating chitin into a solid medium and then observing the formation of halos around the colonies as a consequence of chitin degradation [83]. A protocol whereby chitosan instead of chitin is added to the medium has also been described [84].

    Various colorimetric assays using chitin azure have also been employed. In our laboratory, we utilized an assay whereby a chitin-azure conjugate is incorporated into a top agar layer containing basal medium containing chitin [85]. If the bacterial strain has chitinase activity, the conjugate breaks down and the disassociated azure dye permeates the bottom agar, which turns purple (Figure 2). Overall, this method yields good results and is an effective first screen, but not all technical or biological replicates exhibit the same degree of color production because chitin is insoluble and its uniform distribution in a culture medium is difficult to attain. Moreover, different concentrations or distributions of the bacteria can also affect the uniformity of the results. Hence, other more analytical methods for detecting chitinase activity should be employed (see review by Howard et al., [86]).

    Figure 2. Detecting chitinase activity with a chitin azure colorimetric assay. Chitinase activity can be detected using tubes containing two layers of agar: a top layer consisting of a basal medium with chitin azure, and a lower layer with only the basal medium. When chitin-azure is hydrolyzed in the top layer, the dye diffuses into the lower layer indicating chitinolytic activity. Pictured are two controls used in a chitinase assay, the tube on the left was inoculated with water, while the one on the right was inoculated with a bacterial suspension of a known chitinolytic strain closely related to Paenibacillus tundrae.

    Semi-quantitative or quantitative methods have been developed. For example, Suginta et al. [87] measured chitinase activity by using chitosan labeled with radioactive oligosaccharides, a method, considered by the author to be more accurate than the colorimetric assays. However, additional colorimetric methods have been developed more recently and may be easier and faster to use, and have potential for use in high throughput screening assays [88]. Progress in the techniques for detection, identification, or characterization of chitinases has occurred over the last years, and reviews focusing on the more technical matters have been published. A review article by Duo-Chuan [89] focuses on fungal chitinases and the advances in methodology that have been developed, and screening procedures have been reviewed by Patil et al. [20]. The number of reviews found on only this one topic—technology and methodology of the detection of chitinases—is extensive, thereby highlighting the importance of biotechnology. The use of chitinase and related-enzymes for biotechnological application requires a deep level of understanding, not only of the chitin biochemistry and/or genetics, but also of quantification and accurate detection methodologies of its breakdown products.


    7. Conclusions

    Overall, chitinases are important for pest and pathogen control. Because chitin synthesis is limited to insects, fungi, and some algae, many of which are plant pathogens, this molecule in the pathogen is a logical target for pest control [55]. It is also important to find alternatives to chemical pesticides and to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin because resistance to these molecules has already developed [90,91]. Novel biocontrol agents that serve as alternatives to pesticides, especially those that do not generate resistance and are sustainable and ecologically friendly, have started to appear in the market, and should be a priority goal for the future.

    Although chemical pesticides will be used for many years to come, the need for environmentally friendly alternatives is compelling if we are to avoid further damaging the Earth's ecosystems. Chitinolytic microorganisms are a potential alternative to these chemicals because they are already part of the soil and endophytic microbiome, and would thus minimally alter the ecosystem. They also have been found to provide protection against pathogens in several different scenarios, and in some cases, just amending the soil with chitin results in a decrease of pathogens. However, this field of study is still not sufficiently developed and although the findings so far are promising, more research in this direction should be pursued to obtain enough data to bring about an effective solution to the problems facing food production and harvest.


    Acknowledgements

    P.M.-H. has received a postdoctoral fellowship from "Fundación Ramón Areces" and a research postdoctoral contract in University of Salamanca (JCYL Ref. SA 058U16). E.A.V. was funded in part by NIH IMSD GM055052. Research in the Hirsch laboratory was supported by NSF Award IOS 1201735, a UCLA Faculty Award, and a grant from the Shanbrom Family Foundation.


    Conflict of Interest

    All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.


    [1] Stoykov MY, Pavlov AI, Krastanov AI (2015) Chitinase biotechnology: production, purification, and application. Eng Life Sci 15: 30–38. doi: 10.1002/elsc.201400173
    [2] Oerke EC, Dehne HW, Schonbeck F, et al. (1994) Crop production and crop protection: estimated losses in major food and cash crops, Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
    [3] Russell PE (2006) The development of commercial disease control. Plant Pathol 55: 585–594. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3059.2006.01440.x
    [4] Jørgensen LF, Kjær J, Olsen P, et al. (2012) Leaching of azoxystrobin and its degradation product R234886 from Danish agricultural field sites. Chemosphere 88: 554–562. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2012.03.027
    [5] Damalas CA, Eleftherohorinos IG (2011) Pesticide exposure, safety issues, and risk assessment indicators. Int J Environ Res Public Health 8: 1402–1419. doi: 10.3390/ijerph8051402
    [6] Chiesa LM, Labella GF, Giorgi A, et al. (2016) The occurrence of pesticides and persistent organic pollutants in Italian organic honeys from different productive areas in relation to potential environmental pollution. Chemosphere 154: 482–490. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.04.004
    [7] Liu D, Cai J, Xie C, et al. (2010) Purification and partial characterization of a 36-kDa chitinase from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. colmeri, and its biocontrol potential. Enzyme Microb Technol 46: 252–256.
    [8] Beier S, Bertilsson S (2013) Bacterial chitin degradation-mechanisms and ecophysiological strategies. Front Microbiol 4: 149.
    [9] Edreva A (2005) Pathogenesis-related proteins: research progress in the last 15 years. Gen Appl Plant Physiol 31: 105–124.
    [10] Jang MK, Kong BG, Jeong YI, et al. (2004) Physicochemical characterization of alpha-chitin, beta-chitin, and gamma-chitin separated from natural resources. J Polym Sci A Polym Chem 42: 3423–3432. doi: 10.1002/pola.20176
    [11] Gooday GW (1990) Physiology of microbial degradation of chitin and chitosan. Biodegradation 1: 177–190. doi: 10.1007/BF00058835
    [12] Adrangi S, Faramarzi MA (2013) From bacteria to human: A journey into the world of chitinases. Biotechnol Adv 31: 1786–1795. doi: 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.09.012
    [13] Cohen-Kupiec R, Chet I (1998) The molecular biology of chitin digestion. Curr Opin Biotechnol 9: 270–277. doi: 10.1016/S0958-1669(98)80058-X
    [14] Nagpure A, Choudhary B, Gupta RK (2014) Chitinases: in agriculture and human healthcare. Crit Rev Biotechnol 34: 215–232. doi: 10.3109/07388551.2013.790874
    [15] Dahiya N, Tewari R, Hoondal GS (2006) Biotechnological aspects of chitinolytic enzymes: a review. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 71: 773–782. doi: 10.1007/s00253-005-0183-7
    [16] Herrera-Estrella A, Chet I (1999) Chitinases in biological control. EXS 87: 171–184.
    [17] Souza CP, Almeida BC, Colwell RR, et al. (2011) The importance of chitin in the marine environment. Mar Biotechnol 13: 823. doi: 10.1007/s10126-011-9388-1
    [18] Geisseler D, Horwath WR, Joergensen RG, et al. (2010) Pathways of nitrogen utilization by soil microorganisms-a review. Soil Biol Biochem 42: 2058–2067. doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.08.021
    [19] Brzezinska MS, Jankiewicz U, Walczak M (2013) Biodegradation of chitinous substances and chitinase production by the soil actinomycete Streptomyces rimosus. Int Biodeterior Biodegradation 84: 104–110. doi: 10.1016/j.ibiod.2012.05.038
    [20] Patil RS, Ghormade V, Deshpande MV (2000) Chitinolytic enzymes: an exploration. Enzyme Microb Technol 26: 473–483. doi: 10.1016/S0141-0229(00)00134-4
    [21] Li H, Greene LH (2010) Sequence and structural analysis of the chitinase insertion domain reveals two conserved motifs involved in chitin-binding. PLoS One 5: e8654. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008654
    [22] Horn SJ, Sørbotten A, Synstad B, et al. (2006) Endo/exo mechanism and processivity of family 18 chitinases produced by Serratia marcescens. FEBS J 273: 491–503. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2005.05079.x
    [23] Kawase T, Saito A, Sato T, et al. (2004) Distribution and phylogenetic analysis of family 19 chitinases in actinobacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 70: 1135–1144. doi: 10.1128/AEM.70.2.1135-1144.2004
    [24] Prakash NAU, Jayanthi M, Sabarinathan R, et al. (2010) Evolution, homology conservation, and identification of unique sequence signatures in GH19 family chitinases. J Mol Evol 70: 466–478. doi: 10.1007/s00239-010-9345-z
    [25] Watanabe T, Kanai R, Kawase T, et al. (1999) Family 19 chitinases of Streptomyces species: characterization and distribution. Microbiology 145: 3353–3363. doi: 10.1099/00221287-145-12-3353
    [26] Manjeet K, Purushotham P, Neeraja C, et al. (2013) Bacterial chitin binding proteins show differential substrate binding and synergy with chitinases. Microbiol Res 168: 461–468. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2013.01.006
    [27] Purushotham P, Arun PVPS, Prakash JSS, et al. (2012) Chitin binding proteins act synergistically with chitinases in Serratia proteamaculans 568. PLoS One 7: e36714. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036714
    [28] Vaaje-Kolstad G, Horn SJ, Sørlie M, et al. (2013) The chitinolytic machinery of Serratia marcescens-a model system for enzymatic degradation of recalcitrant polysaccharides. FEBS J 280: 3028–3049. doi: 10.1111/febs.12181
    [29] Frändberg E, Schnürer J (1994) Chitinolytic properties of Bacillus pabuli K1. J Appl Bacteriol 76: 361–367. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.1994.tb01641.x
    [30] Gupta R, Saxena RK, Chaturvedi P, et al. (1995) Chitinase production by Streptomyces viridificans: its potential in fungal cell wall lysis. J Appl Bacteriol 78: 378–383. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.1995.tb03421.x
    [31] Saito A, Fujii T, Yoneyama T, et al. (1998) glkA is involved in glucose repression of chitinase production in Streptomyces lividans. J Bacteriol 180: 2911–2914.
    [32] Xiayun J, Chen D, Shenle H, et al. (2012) Identification, characterization and functional analysis of a GH-18 chitinase from Streptomyces roseolus. Carbohydr Polym 87: 2409–2415. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.11.008
    [33] Bélanger RR (2001) Biological control in greenhouse systems. Annu Rev Phytopathol 39: 103–133. doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.39.1.103
    [34] Kalia A, Gosal SK (2011) Effect of pesticide application on soil microorganisms. Arch Agron Soil Sci 57: 569–596. doi: 10.1080/03650341003787582
    [35] Schuster E, Schroeder D (1990) Side-effects of sequentially-and simultaneously-applied pesticides on non-target soil microorganisms: laboratory experiments. Soil Biol Biochem 22: 375–383. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(90)90116-H
    [36] Carozzi NB, Koziel M (2005) Chitinase for insect control, In: Carozzi NB, Koziel M, Editors, Advances in insect control: the role of transgenic plants, London: Taylor & Francis, 211–220.
    [37] Brandt CR, Adang MJ, Spence KD (1978) The peritrophic membrane: ultrastructural analysis and function as a mechanical barrier to microbial infection in Orgyia pseudotsugata. J Invertebr Pathol 32: 12–24. doi: 10.1016/0022-2011(78)90169-6
    [38] Regev A, Keller M, Strizhov N, et al. (1996) Synergistic activity of a Bacillus thuringiensis delta-endotoxin and a bacterial endochitinase against Spodoptera littoralis larvae. Appl Environ Microbiol 62: 3581–3586.
    [39] Barka EA, Vatsa P, Sanchez L, et al. (2016) Taxonomy, physiology, and natural products of actinobacteria. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 80: 1–43. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.00019-15
    [40] Gonzalez-Franco AC, Deobald LA, Spivak A, et al. (2003) Actinobacterial chitinase-like enzymes: profiles of rhizosphere versus non-rhizosphere isolates. Can J Microbiol 49: 683–698. doi: 10.1139/w03-089
    [41] Metcalfe AC, Krsek M, Gooday GW, et al. (2002) Molecular analysis of a bacterial chitinolytic community in an upland pasture. Appl Environ Microbiol 68: 5042–5050. doi: 10.1128/AEM.68.10.5042-5050.2002
    [42] Bai Y, Eijsink VGH, Kielak AM, et al. (2016) Genomic comparison of chitinolytic enzyme systems from terrestrial and aquatic bacteria. Environ Microbiol 18: 38–49. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.12545
    [43] Boer WD, Gerards S, Gunnewiek PJAK, et al. (1999) Response of the chitinolytic microbial community to chitin amendments of dune soils. Biol Fertil Soils 29: 170–177. doi: 10.1007/s003740050541
    [44] Kawase T, Yokokawa S, Saito A, et al. (2006) Comparison of enzymatic and antifungal properties between family 18 and 19 chitinases from S. coelicolor A3(2). Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 70: 988–998. doi: 10.1271/bbb.70.988
    [45] Tsujibo H, Kubota T, Yamamoto M, et al. (2003) Characterization of chitinase genes from an alkaliphilic actinomycete, Nocardiopsis prasina OPC-131. Appl Environ Microbiol 69: 894–900. doi: 10.1128/AEM.69.2.894-900.2003
    [46] Prapagdee B, Kuekulvong C, Mongkolsuk S (2008) Antifungal potential of extracellular metabolites produced by Streptomyces hygroscopicus against phytopathogenic fungi. Int J Biol Sci 4: 330–337.
    [47] Tahtamouni MEW, Hameed KM, Saadoun IM (2006) Biological control of Sclerotinia sclerotiorum using indigenous chitinolytic actinomycetes in Jordan. Plant Pathol J 22: 107–114. doi: 10.5423/PPJ.2006.22.2.107
    [48] Sadeghi A, Hessan AR, Askari H, et al. (2006) Biological control potential of two Streptomyces isolates on Rhizoctonia solani, the causal agent of damping-off of sugar beet. Pak J Biol Sci 9: 904–910. doi: 10.3923/pjbs.2006.904.910
    [49] Gherbawy Y, Elhariry H, Altalhi A, et al. (2012) Molecular screening of Streptomyces isolates for antifungal activity and family 19 chitinase enzymes. J Microbiol 50: 459–468. doi: 10.1007/s12275-012-2095-4
    [50] El-Tarabily KA, Soliman MH, Nassar AH, et al. (2000) Biological control of Sclerotinia minor using a chitinolytic bacterium and actinomycetes. Plant Pathol 49: 573–583. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3059.2000.00494.x
    [51] Lee SY, Tindwa H, Lee YS, et al. (2012) Biocontrol of anthracnose in pepper using chitinase, beta-1, 3 glucanase, and 2-furancarboxaldehyde produced by Streptomyces cavourensis SY224. J Microbiol Biotechnol 22: 1359–1366. doi: 10.4014/jmb.1203.02056
    [52] Chen YL, Lu W, Chen YH, et al. (2007) Cloning, expression and sequence analysis of chiA, chiB in Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. colmeri 15A3. Wei Sheng Wu Xue Bao 47: 843–848.
    [53] Hollensteiner J, Wemheuer F, Harting R, et al. (2017) Bacillus thuringiensis and Bacillus weihenstephanensis inhibit the growth of phytopathogenic Verticillium Species. Front Microbiol 7: 2171.
    [54] Prasanna L, Eijsink VG, Meadow R, et al. (2013) A novel strain of Brevibacillus laterosporus produces chitinases that contribute to its biocontrol potential. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 97: 1601–1611. doi: 10.1007/s00253-012-4019-y
    [55] Kramer KJ, Muthukrishnan S (1997) Insect chitinases: molecular biology and potential use as biopesticides. Insect Biochem Molec 27: 887–900. doi: 10.1016/S0965-1748(97)00078-7
    [56] Liu C, Wu K, Wu Y, et al. (2009) Reduction of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac toxicity against Helicoverpa armigera by a soluble toxin-binding cadherin fragment. J Insect Physiol 55: 686–693. doi: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2009.05.001
    [57] Li JG, Jiang ZQ, Xu P, et al. (2008) Characterization of chitinase secreted by Bacillus cereus strain CH2 and evaluation of its efficacy against Verticillium wilt of eggplant. Biocontrol 53: 931–944. doi: 10.1007/s10526-007-9144-7
    [58] Rishad KS, Rebello S, Shabanamol PS, et al. (2016) Biocontrol potential of halotolerant bacterial chitinase from high yielding novel Bacillus pumilus MCB-7 autochthonous to mangrove ecosystem. Pestic Biochem Physiol 137: 36–41.
    [59] Jung SJ, An KN, Jin YL, et al. (2002) Effect of chitinase-producing Paenibacillus illinoisensis KJA-424 on egg hatching of root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne incognita). J Microbiol Biotechnol 12: 865–871.
    [60] Singh AK, Singh A, Joshi P (2016) Combined application of chitinolytic bacterium Paenibacillus sp. D1 with low doses of chemical pesticides for better control of Helicoverpa armigera. Int J Pest Manage 62: 222–227.
    [61] Suzuki K, Sugawara N, Suzuki M, et al. (2002) Chitinases A, B, and C1 of Serratia marcescens 2170 produced by recombinant Escherichia coli: enzymatic properties and synergism on chitin degradation. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 66: 1075–1083. doi: 10.1271/bbb.66.1075
    [62] Vaaje-Kolstad G, Houston DR, Riemen AHK, et al. (2005) Crystal structure and binding properties of the Serratia marcescens chitin-binding protein CBP21. J Biol Chem 280: 11313–11319. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M407175200
    [63] Someya N, Nakajima M, Hirayae K, et al. (2001) Synergistic antifungal activity of chitinolytic enzymes and prodigiosin produced by biocontrol bacterium, Serratia marcescens strain B2 against gray mold pathogen, Botrytis cinerea. J Gen Plant Pathol 67: 312–317. doi: 10.1007/PL00013038
    [64] Okamoto H, Koiso Y, Iwasaki S, et al. (1998) Identification of antibiotic red pigments of Serratia marcescens F-1-1, a biocontrol agent of damping-off of cucumber, and antimicrobial activity against other plant pathogens. Jpn J Phytopathol 64: 294–298. doi: 10.3186/jjphytopath.64.294
    [65] Suryanto D, Wahyuni S, Siregar EBM, et al. (2014) Utilization of chitinolytic bacterial isolates to control anthracnose of cocoa leaf caused by Colletotrichum gloeosporioides. Afr J Biotechnol 13: 1631–1637. doi: 10.5897/AJB11.3687
    [66] Cronin D, Moënne-Loccoz, Y, Dunne C, et al. (1997) Inhibition of egg hatch of the potato cyst nematode Globodera rostochiensis by chitinase-producing bacteria. Eur J Plant Pathol 103: 433–440. doi: 10.1023/A:1008662729757
    [67] Sindhu SS, Dadarwal KR (2001) Chitinolytic and cellulolytic Pseudomonas sp. antagonistic to fungal pathogens enhances nodulation by Mesorhizobium sp. Cicer in chickpea. Microbiol Res 156: 353–358.
    [68] Zhong W, Ding S, Guo H, et al. (2015) The chitinase C gene PsChiC from Pseudomonas sp. and its synergistic effects on larvicidal activity. Genet Mol Biol 38: 366–372.
    [69] Kharade SS, McBride MJ (2014) Flavobacterium johnsoniae chitinase ChiA is required for chitin utilization and is secreted by the type IX secretion system. J Bacteriol 196: 961–970. doi: 10.1128/JB.01170-13
    [70] Winson MK, Camara M, Latifi A, et al. (1995) Multiple N-acyl-L-homoserine lactone signal molecules regulate production of virulence determinants and secondary metabolites in Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92: 9427–9431. doi: 10.1073/pnas.92.20.9427
    [71] Chernin LS, Winson MK, Thompson JM, et al. (1998) Chitinolytic activity in Chromobacterium violaceum: substrate analysis and regulation by quorum sensing. J Bacteriol 180: 4435–4441.
    [72] Johnson GI, Sanghote S (1993) Control of postharvest diseases of tropical fruits: Challenges for the 21st century, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, 140–167.
    [73] Swain MR, Ray RC, Nautiyal CS (2008) Biocontrol efficacy of Bacillus subtilis strains isolated from cow dung against postharvest yam (Dioscorea rotundata L.) pathogens. Curr Microbiol 57: 407.
    [74] Essghaier B, Abdeljabbar H, Hajlaoui MR, et al. (2012) In vivo and in vitro evaluation of antifungal activities from a halotolerant Bacillus subtilis strain J9. Afr J Microbiol Res 6: 4073–4083. doi: 10.5897/AJMR11.403
    [75] Wang X, Xu F, Wang J, et al. (2013) Bacillus cereus AR156 induces resistance against Rhizopus rot through priming of defense responses in peach fruit. Food Chem 136: 400–406. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.09.032
    [76] Zhang Q, Yong D, Zhang Y, et al. (2016) Streptomyces rochei A-1 induces resistance and defense-related responses against Botryosphaeria dothidea in apple fruit during storage. Postharvest Biol Technol 115: 30–37. doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2015.12.013
    [77] Melchers LS, Lageweg W, Stuiver MH (1998) The utility of PR genes to develop disease resistance in transgenic crops, In: 5th international workshop on pathogenesis-related proteins. Signalling pathways and biological activities, Aussois, France, 46.
    [78] Buxton EW, Khalifa O, Ward V (1965) Effect of soil amendment with chitin on pea wilt caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. pisi. Ann Appl Biol 55: 83–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7348.1965.tb07870.x
    [79] Cretoiu MS, Korthals GW, Visser JH, et al. (2013) Chitin amendment increases soil suppressiveness toward plant pathogens and modulates the actinobacterial and oxalobacteraceal communities in an experimental agricultural field. Appl Environ Microbiol 79: 5291–5301. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01361-13
    [80] Jacquiod S, Franqueville L, Cécillon SM, et al. (2013) Soil bacterial community shifts after chitin enrichment: an integrative metagenomic approach. PLoS One 8: e79699. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079699
    [81] Vázquez MM, César, S, Azcón R, et al. (2000) Interactions between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and other microbial inoculants (Azospirillum, Pseudomonas, Trichoderma) and their effects on microbial population and enzyme activities in the rhizosphere of maize plants. Appl Soil Ecol 15: 261–272. doi: 10.1016/S0929-1393(00)00075-5
    [82] Vauramo S, Pasonen HL, Pappinen A, et al. (2006) Decomposition of leaf litter from chitinase transgenic silver birch (Betula pendula) and effects on decomposer populations in a field trial. Appl Soil Ecol 32: 338–349. doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2005.07.007
    [83] Kaur K, Dattajirao V, Shrivastava V, et al. (2012) Isolation and characterization of chitosan-producing bacterial from beaches of Chennai, India. Enzym Res 42: 1683.
    [84] Kuddus M, Ahmad IZ (2013) Isolation of novel chitinolytic bacteria and production optimization of extracellular chitinase. J Gen Eng Biotech 11: 39–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jgeb.2013.03.001
    [85] Kaplan D, Maymon M, Agapakis CM, et al. (2013) A survey of the microbial community in the rhizosphere of two dominant shrubs of the Negev Desert highlands, Zygophyllum dumosum (Zygophyllaceae) and Atriplex halimus (Amaranthaceae), using cultivation-dependent and cultivation-independent methods. Am J Bot 100: 1713–1725. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1200615
    [86] Howard MB, Ekborg NA, Weiner RM, et al. (2003) Detection and characterization of chitinases and other chitin-modifying enzymes. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 30: 627–635. doi: 10.1007/s10295-003-0096-3
    [87] Suginta W, Robertson PAW, Austin B, et al. (2000), Chitinases from Vibrio: activity screening and purification of chiA from Vibrio carchariae. J Appl Microbiol 89: 76–84.
    [88] Ferrari AR, Gaber Y, Fraaije MW (2014) A fast, sensitive and easy colorimetric assay for chitinase and cellulase activity detection. Biotech Biofuels 7: 37. doi: 10.1186/1754-6834-7-37
    [89] Duo-Chuan L (2006) Review of fungal chitinases. Mycopathologia 161: 345–360. doi: 10.1007/s11046-006-0024-y
    [90] Udamale SK, Moharil, MP, Ugale TB, et al. (2013) Differential inhibition of Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) gut proteinases by proteinase inhibitors of okra and its wild relatives. ISRN Biotechnol 2013: 632173.
    [91] Rajagopal R, Arora N, Sivakumar S, et al. (2009) Resistance of Helicoverpa armigera to Cry1Ac toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis is due to improper processing of the protoxin. Biochem J 419: 309–316. doi: 10.1042/BJ20081152
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Qingrong Li, Sentai Liao, Huyu Zhi, Dongxu Xing, Yang Xiao, Qiong Yang, Characterization and sequence analysis of potential biofertilizer and biocontrol agent Bacillus subtilis strain SEM-9 from silkworm excrement, 2019, 65, 0008-4166, 45, 10.1139/cjm-2018-0350
    2. Abdul Aziz Eida, Salim Bougouffa, Intikhab Alam, Heribert Hirt, Maged M. Saad, Complete Genome Sequence of Paenibacillus sp. JZ16, a Plant Growth Promoting Root Endophytic Bacterium of the Desert Halophyte Zygophyllum Simplex, 2020, 77, 0343-8651, 1097, 10.1007/s00284-020-01908-5
    3. Eman M. Khalaf, Manish N. Raizada, David A. Baltrus, Draft Genome Sequences of Acinetobacter sp. Strain EKM10A, Enterobacter hormaechei EKM10E, and Enterobacter hormaechei EKM11E (Phylum Proteobacteria) Colonizing the Seed Surface Biogel of Echinocystis lobata (Wild Cucumber), 2020, 9, 2576-098X, 10.1128/MRA.00184-20
    4. Eman M. Khalaf, Manish N. Raizada, David A. Baltrus, Draft Genome Sequences of Seven Strains of Paenibacillus spp. (Phylum Firmicutes) Inhabiting the Seeds of Cucumis melo L. (Cantaloupe) and Exhibiting Plant Probiotic Traits, 2020, 9, 2576-098X, 10.1128/MRA.00715-20
    5. Yunzeng Zhang, Jin Xu, Entao Wang, Nian Wang, Mechanisms Underlying the Rhizosphere-To-Rhizoplane Enrichment of Cellvibrio Unveiled by Genome-Centric Metagenomics and Metatranscriptomics, 2020, 8, 2076-2607, 583, 10.3390/microorganisms8040583
    6. Abirami Sasi, Nagarajan Duraipandiyan, Kannan Marikani, Sugapriya Dhanasekaran, Noura Al-Dayan, Divya Venugopal, Yu Tao, Identification and Characterization of a Newly Isolated Chitinase-Producing Strain Bacillus licheniformis SSCL-10 for Chitin Degradation, 2020, 2020, 1472-3654, 1, 10.1155/2020/8844811
    7. Yusuke Shimoi, Daichi Honma, Airi Kurematsu, Yukari Iwasaki, Yohei Kotsuchibashi, Yusuke Wakikawa, Akihiro Saito, Effects of chitin degradation products N-acetylglucosamine and N,Nʹ-diacetylchitobiose on chitinase activity and bacterial community structure in an incubated upland soil, 2020, 66, 0038-0768, 429, 10.1080/00380768.2020.1767488
    8. Yunpeng Chen, Tong Liu, Qiongjie Li, Yifei Ma, Jiejie Cheng, Lurong Xu, Screening for Candidate Genes Associated with Biocontrol Mechanisms of Bacillus pumilus DX01 Using Tn5 Transposon Mutagenesis and a 2-DE-Based Comparative Proteomic Analysis, 2020, 77, 0343-8651, 3397, 10.1007/s00284-020-02191-0
    9. P. Tehranchian, R. J. Adair, T. T. H. Van, P. D. Morrison, H. Williams, A. C. Lawrie, Biological Control of the Noxious Weed Angled Onion (Allium triquetrum) Thwarted by Endophytic Bacteria in Victoria, Australia, 2020, 49, 0815-3191, 373, 10.1007/s13313-020-00710-y
    10. Guihua Shen, Shuting Zhang, Xiaojiao Liu, Qipeng Jiang, Wei Ding, Soil acidification amendments change the rhizosphere bacterial community of tobacco in a bacterial wilt affected field, 2018, 102, 0175-7598, 9781, 10.1007/s00253-018-9347-0
    11. Tayyaba Asif, Urooj Javed, Syeda Bushra Zafar, Asma Ansari, Shah Ali Ul Qader, Afsheen Aman, Bioconversion of Colloidal Chitin Using Novel Chitinase from Glutamicibacter uratoxydans Exhibiting Anti-fungal Potential by Hydrolyzing Chitin Within Fungal Cell Wall, 2020, 11, 1877-2641, 4129, 10.1007/s12649-019-00746-2
    12. Thiago Machado Pasin, Tássio Brito de Oliveira, Ana Sílvia de Almeida Scarcella, Maria de Lourdes Teixeira de Moraes Polizeli, María-Eugenia Guazzaroni, Perspectives on Expanding the Repertoire of Novel Microbial Chitinases for Biological Control, 2021, 69, 0021-8561, 3284, 10.1021/acs.jafc.1c00219
    13. Qingrong Li, Sentai Liao, Junhong Wei, Dongxu Xing, Yang Xiao, Qiong Yang, Isolation of Bacillus subtilis strain SEM-2 from silkworm excrement and characterisation of its antagonistic effect against Fusarium spp., 2020, 66, 0008-4166, 401, 10.1139/cjm-2019-0621
    14. Xiyan Wang, Thomas Isbrandt, Mikael Lenz Strube, Sara Skøtt Paulsen, Maike Wennekers Nielsen, Yannick Buijs, Erwin M. Schoof, Thomas Ostenfeld Larsen, Lone Gram, Sheng-Da Zhang, Chitin Degradation Machinery and Secondary Metabolite Profiles in the Marine Bacterium Pseudoalteromonas rubra S4059, 2021, 19, 1660-3397, 108, 10.3390/md19020108
    15. Elias K. Zegeye, Natalie C. Sadler, Gerard X. Lomas, Isaac K. Attah, Janet K. Jansson, Kirsten S. Hofmockel, Christopher R. Anderton, Aaron T. Wright, Activity‐Based Protein Profiling of Chitin Catabolism, 2021, 22, 1439-4227, 717, 10.1002/cbic.202000616
    16. Marie Legein, Wenke Smets, Dieter Vandenheuvel, Tom Eilers, Babette Muyshondt, Els Prinsen, Roeland Samson, Sarah Lebeer, Modes of Action of Microbial Biocontrol in the Phyllosphere, 2020, 11, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01619
    17. Anna Schönbichler, Sara M. Díaz-Moreno, Vaibhav Srivastava, Lauren Sara McKee, Exploring the Potential for Fungal Antagonism and Cell Wall Attack by Bacillus subtilis natto, 2020, 11, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00521
    18. Neeraja P. Dhole, Mudasir A. Dar, Radhakrishna S. Pandit, Recent advances in the bioprospection and applications of chitinolytic bacteria for valorization of waste chitin, 2021, 0302-8933, 10.1007/s00203-021-02234-5
    19. Anna Kisiel, Katarzyna Jęckowska, CHITINASES AS THE KEY TO THE INTERACTION BETWEEN PLANTS AND MICROORGANISMS, 2019, 58, 0079-4252, 317, 10.21307/PM-2019.58.3.317
    20. Sazzad Hossen Toushik, Md. Furkanur Rahaman Mizan, Md. Iqbal Hossain, Sang-Do Ha, Fighting with old foes: The pledge of microbe-derived biological agents to defeat mono- and mixed-bacterial biofilms concerning food industries, 2020, 99, 09242244, 413, 10.1016/j.tifs.2020.03.019
    21. Sonia Sharma, Shiv Kumar, Anjali Khajuria, Puja Ohri, Rajinder Kaur, Ramandeep Kaur, Biocontrol potential of chitinases produced by newly isolated Chitinophaga sp. S167, 2020, 36, 0959-3993, 10.1007/s11274-020-02864-9
    22. Benoit Duong, Hoa Xuan Nguyen, Ha Viet Phan, Stefano Colella, Phap Quang Trinh, Giang Thi Hoang, Tuyet Thi Nguyen, Pierre Marraccini, Michel Lebrun, Robin Duponnois, Identification and characterization of Vietnamese coffee bacterial endophytes displaying in vitro antifungal and nematicidal activities, 2021, 242, 09445013, 126613, 10.1016/j.micres.2020.126613
    23. Gincy M Mathew, Aravind Madhavan, K. B. Arun, Raveendran Sindhu, Parameswaran Binod, Reeta Rani Singhania, Rajeev K Sukumaran, Ashok Pandey, Thermophilic Chitinases: Structural, Functional and Engineering Attributes for Industrial Applications, 2021, 193, 0273-2289, 142, 10.1007/s12010-020-03416-5
    24. Ester Simonetti, Florencia Alvarez, Nicolás Feldman, Matías Vinacour, Irma N. Roberts, Jimena A. Ruiz, Genomic insights into the potent antifungal activity of B. ambifaria T16, 2021, 155, 10499644, 104530, 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2020.104530
    25. Munendra Kumar, Prateek Kumar, Payal Das, Renu Solanki, Monisha Khanna Kapur, Potential applications of extracellular enzymes from Streptomyces spp. in various industries, 2020, 202, 0302-8933, 1597, 10.1007/s00203-020-01898-9
    26. Noor Khan, Maskit Maymon, Ann Hirsch, Combating Fusarium Infection Using Bacillus-Based Antimicrobials, 2017, 5, 2076-2607, 75, 10.3390/microorganisms5040075
    27. Elena Cerro-Gálvez, Jose L. Roscales, Begoña Jiménez, M. Montserrat Sala, Jordi Dachs, Maria Vila-Costa, Microbial responses to perfluoroalkyl substances and perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS) desulfurization in the Antarctic marine environment, 2020, 171, 00431354, 115434, 10.1016/j.watres.2019.115434
    28. Meriem Gasmi, Mahmoud Kitouni, Lorena Carro, Petar Pujic, Philippe Normand, Hasna Boubakri, Chitinolytic actinobacteria isolated from an Algerian semi-arid soil: development of an antifungal chitinase-dependent assay and GH18 chitinase gene identification, 2019, 69, 1590-4261, 395, 10.1007/s13213-018-1426-z
    29. Zobia Khatoon, Suiliang Huang, Mazhar Rafique, Ali Fakhar, Muhammad Aqeel Kamran, Gustavo Santoyo, Unlocking the potential of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on soil health and the sustainability of agricultural systems, 2020, 273, 03014797, 111118, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111118
    30. Yasser Akeed, Faiza Atrash, Walid Naffaa, Partial purification and characterization of chitinase produced by Bacillus licheniformis B307, 2020, 6, 24058440, e03858, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03858
    31. Cai Hui, Hui Jiang, Bing Liu, Ran Wei, Yiping Zhang, Qichun Zhang, Yongchao Liang, Yuhua Zhao, Chitin degradation and the temporary response of bacterial chitinolytic communities to chitin amendment in soil under different fertilization regimes, 2020, 705, 00489697, 136003, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136003
    32. Marie-Ève Lacombe-Harvey, Ryszard Brzezinski, Carole Beaulieu, Chitinolytic functions in actinobacteria: ecology, enzymes, and evolution, 2018, 102, 0175-7598, 7219, 10.1007/s00253-018-9149-4
    33. Julaluk Noiphung, Mani Iyer Prasanth, Tewin Tencomnao, Wanida Laiwattanapaisal, Paper-Based Analytical Device for Real-Time Monitoring of Egg Hatching in the Model Nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, 2020, 5, 2379-3694, 1750, 10.1021/acssensors.0c00412
    34. D. L. Itkina, A. D. Suleimanova, M. R. Sharipova, Pantoea brenneri AS3 and Bacillus ginsengihumi M2.11 as Potential Biocontrol and Plant Growth-Promoting Agents, 2021, 90, 0026-2617, 210, 10.1134/S0026261721020053
    35. Estelle Turc, Thomas Pressecq, Philippe C. Nicot, Marc Bardin, 2022, 9781789249187, 45, 10.1079/9781789249200.0003
    36. Louis Garneau, Pascale B. Beauregard, Sébastien Roy, Deciphering the role of non-Frankia nodular endophytes in alder through in vitro and genomic characterization, 2023, 69, 0008-4166, 72, 10.1139/cjm-2022-0073
    37. Ling-Dong Shi, Xiyang Dong, Zongbao Liu, Yuchun Yang, Jih-Gaw Lin, Meng Li, Ji-Dong Gu, Li-Zhong Zhu, He-Ping Zhao, A mixed blessing of viruses in wastewater treatment plants, 2022, 215, 00431354, 118237, 10.1016/j.watres.2022.118237
    38. Kelly Dwyer, Ian S. Bentley, Emma Tighe, Eibhilin McGleenan, Darragh Gaffney, Gary Walsh, Recombinant production and characterisation of two chitinases from Rasamsonia emersonii, and assessment of their potential industrial applicability, 2021, 105, 0175-7598, 7769, 10.1007/s00253-021-11578-3
    39. Nagwa I. Elarabi, Asmaa A. Halema, Abdelhadi A. Abdelhadi, Ahmed R. Henawy, Omar Samir, Heba A. R. Abdelhaleem, Draft genome of Raoultella planticola, a high lead resistance bacterium from industrial wastewater, 2023, 13, 2191-0855, 10.1186/s13568-023-01519-w
    40. Anindita Sharma, Shailendra Kumar Arya, Jatinder Singh, Bhupinder Kapoor, Jasvinder Singh Bhatti, Ashish Suttee, Gursharan Singh, Prospects of chitinase in sustainable farming and modern biotechnology: an update on recent progress and challenges, 2023, 0264-8725, 1, 10.1080/02648725.2023.2183593
    41. Full Issue PDF, 2022, 6, 2471-2906, 108, 10.1094/PBIOMES-6-2
    42. Phung Thi Bich Hoa, Nguyen Hoang Tue, Le Thi Thu Huyen, Luc Hoang Linh, Nguyen Thanh Nhan, Nguyen Quang Duc Tien, Nguyen Ngoc Luong, Nguyen Xuan Huy, Nguyen Hoang Loc, Overexpression of 42 kDa chitinase genes from Trichoderma asperellum SH16 in peanut (Arachis hypogaea), 2022, 1542-7528, 1, 10.1080/15427528.2022.2110346
    43. Luca Federici, Michele Masulli, Vincenzo De Laurenzi, Nerino Allocati, An overview of bats microbiota and its implication in transmissible diseases, 2022, 13, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2022.1012189
    44. Maya Moshe, Chhedi Lal Gupta, Noa Sela, Dror Minz, Ehud Banin, Omer Frenkel, Eddie Cytryn, Comparative genomics of Bacillus cereus sensu lato spp. biocontrol strains in correlation to in-vitro phenotypes and plant pathogen antagonistic capacity, 2023, 14, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2023.996287
    45. Suraja Kumar Nayak, Swapnarani Nayak, Swaraj Mohanty, Jitendra Kumar Sundaray, Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra, 2021, 9781119526230, 313, 10.1002/9781119525899.ch15
    46. Sahayanathan Gracy Jenifer, Ganapathy Marimuthu, Hanumanthan Raghuram, Isolation and characterization of chitinolytic bacterium, Escherichia fergusonii AMC01 from insectivorous bat, Taphozous melanopogon , 2021, 61, 0233-111X, 940, 10.1002/jobm.202100271
    47. Eligio Malusà, Gabriele Berg, Arjen Biere, Anne Bohr, Loredana Canfora, Anne D. Jungblut, Wojciech Kepka, Jutta Kienzle, Peter Kusstatscher, Sylvie Masquelier, Massimo Pugliese, Jaka Razinger, Maria Grazia Tommasini, Nikolay Vassilev, Nicolai Vitt Meyling, Xiangming Xu, Stefano Mocali, A Holistic Approach for Enhancing the Efficacy of Soil Microbial Inoculants in Agriculture, 2021, 8, 2409-9813, 176, 10.15377/2409-9813.2021.08.14
    48. Soner SOYLU, Merve KARA, Emine Mine SOYLU, Aysun UYSAL, Şener KURT, Geotrichum citri-aurantii’nin Sebep Olduğu Turunçgil Ekşi Çürüklük Hastalığının Biyolojik Mücadelesinde Endofit Bakterilerin Biyokontrol Potansiyellerinin Belirlenmesi, 2021, 1302-7050, 10.33462/jotaf.944704
    49. Devanshi Khokhani, Cristobal Carrera Carriel, Shivangi Vayla, Thomas B. Irving, Christina Stonoha-Arther, Nancy P. Keller, Jean-Michel Ané, Deciphering the Chitin Code in Plant Symbiosis, Defense, and Microbial Networks, 2021, 75, 0066-4227, 583, 10.1146/annurev-micro-051921-114809
    50. Walaa A. Abdel Wahab, Asmaa Negm El-Dein, Mona Hussein, Faten A. Mostafa, Shireen A. A. Saleh, Kinetic, Thermodynamic and Bio-applicable Studies on Aspergillus niger Mk981235 Chitinase, 2022, 1011-372X, 10.1007/s10562-022-04045-9
    51. Pilar Martínez-Hidalgo, Ethan A. Humm, David W. Still, Baochen Shi, Matteo Pellegrini, Gabriela de la Roca, Esteban Veliz, Maskit Maymon, Pierrick Bru, Marcel Huntemann, Alicia Clum, Krishnaveni Palaniappan, Neha Varghese, Supratim Mukherjee, T. B. K. Reddy, Chris Daum, Natalia N. Ivanova, Nikos C. Kyrpides, Nicole Shapiro, Emiley A. Eloe-Fadrosh, Ann M. Hirsch, Medicago root nodule microbiomes: insights into a complex ecosystem with potential candidates for plant growth promotion, 2022, 471, 0032-079X, 507, 10.1007/s11104-021-05247-7
    52. Gisele de Fátima Dias Diniz, Luciano Viana Cota, José Edson Fontes Figueiredo, Frederick Mendes Aguiar, Dagma Dionísia da Silva, Ubiraci Gomes de Paula Lana, Vera Lúcia dos Santos, Ivanildo Evódio Marriel, Christiane Abreu de Oliveira-Paiva, Antifungal activity of bacterial strains from maize silks against Fusarium verticillioides, 2022, 204, 0302-8933, 10.1007/s00203-021-02726-4
    53. Huiyan Zhang, Haichuan Zhou, Yong Zhao, Tang Li, Heng Yin, Comparative studies of two AA10 family lytic polysaccharide monooxygenases from Bacillus thuringiensis, 2023, 11, 2167-8359, e14670, 10.7717/peerj.14670
    54. Gabriel Gbenga Babaniyi, Babatunde Oyemade, Damilola Orija, 2022, Chapter 17, 978-981-19-0154-6, 379, 10.1007/978-981-19-0155-3_17
    55. Merja H. Kontro, Jayachandra S. Yaradoddi, Sharanabasava V. Ganachari, Nagaraj R. Banapurmath, M. K. Umesh, 2021, Chapter 12, 978-981-16-3352-2, 213, 10.1007/978-981-16-3353-9_12
    56. Rekha Chouhan, Sajad Ahmed, Sumit G. Gandhi, Over-expression of PR proteins with chitinase activity in transgenic plants for alleviation of fungal pathogenesis, 2022, 2239-7264, 10.1007/s42161-022-01226-8
    57. Jinal Badrakia, Keyur B Patel, Pinakin Dhandhukia, Janki N Thakker, Mycoparasitic Pseudomonas spp. against infection of Fusarium chlamydosporum pathogen in soyabean (Glycine max) plant, 2021, 54, 0323-5408, 2160, 10.1080/03235408.2021.1925433
    58. Edgar Castro-Saines, Ruben Hernandez-Ortiz, Rodolfo Lagunes-Quintanilla, Guadalupe Peña-Chora, Characterization of a strain of Serratia sp. with ixodicide activity against the cattle tick Rhipicephalus microplus, 2021, 85, 0168-8162, 101, 10.1007/s10493-021-00640-4
    59. J. Alexander Trejo-López, Esmeralda Rangel-Vargas, Carlos A. Gómez-Aldapa, José R. Villagómez-Ibarra, Reyna N. Falfán-Cortes, Otilio A. Acevedo-Sandoval, Javier Castro-Rosas, Isolation and Molecular Identification of Serratia Strains Producing Chitinases, Glucanases, Cellulases, and Prodigiosin and Determination of Their Antifungal Effect against Colletotrichum siamense and Alternaria alternata In Vitro and on Mango Fruit, 2022, 13, 2037-0164, 281, 10.3390/ijpb13030024
    60. Oğuzhan Yanar, Elif Fatma Topkara, Tuğrul Doruk, Efficacy of Diptera-targeted Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis against the pine processionary moth, Thaumetopoea wilkinsoni (Lepidoptera: Notodontidae), 2022, 55, 0323-5408, 1530, 10.1080/03235408.2022.2105133
    61. Louis Garneau, Pascale B. Beauregard, Sébastien Roy, Neighbours in nodules: the interactions between Frankia sp. ACN10a and non-Frankia nodular endophytes of alder, 2023, 69, 0008-4166, 88, 10.1139/cjm-2022-0074
    62. Barak Dror, Hildah Amutuhaire, Omer Frenkel, Edouard Jurkevitch, Eddie Cytryn, Identification of Bacterial Populations and Functional Mechanisms Potentially Involved in Biochar-Facilitated Antagonism of the Soilborne Pathogen Fusarium oxysporum, 2022, 6, 2471-2906, 139, 10.1094/PBIOMES-11-21-0071-R
    63. Mohd Imran, Hussein H. Abulreesh, Mohammad K. Monjed, Khaled Elbanna, Iqbal Ahmad, Multifarious functional traits of free-living rhizospheric fungi, with special reference to Aspergillus spp. isolated from North Indian soil, and their inoculation effect on plant growth, 2021, 71, 1590-4261, 10.1186/s13213-021-01643-7
    64. Rajamuthu Renuka, Kupusamy Prabakar, Rangasamy Anandham, Lakshmanan Pugalendhi, Lingam Rajendran, Thiruvengadam Raguchander, Gandhi Karthikeyan, Exploring the Potentiality of Native Actinobacteria to Combat the Chilli Fruit Rot Pathogens under Post-Harvest Pathosystem, 2023, 13, 2075-1729, 426, 10.3390/life13020426
    65. Angeline Jessika Suresh, Regina Sharmila Dass, 2022, Chapter 2, 978-981-16-2624-1, 31, 10.1007/978-981-16-2625-8_2
    66. Amine Elbouazaoui, Badreddine Sijilmassi, Ilyass Maafa, Douira Allal, Seid Ahmed, Biocontrol activity of Bacillus, Paenibacillus and Pseudomonas against Fusarium wilt of chickpea in Morocco, 2022, 72, 0906-4710, 847, 10.1080/09064710.2022.2100819
    67. Farjana Sultana, M. Motaher Hossain, Ying Ma, Assessing the potentials of bacterial antagonists for plant growth promotion, nutrient acquisition, and biological control of Southern blight disease in tomato, 2022, 17, 1932-6203, e0267253, 10.1371/journal.pone.0267253
    68. Andrés Costa, Belén Corallo, Vanesa Amarelle, Silvina Stewart, Dinorah Pan, Susana Tiscornia, Elena Fabiano, Hideaki Nojiri, Paenibacillus sp. Strain UY79, Isolated from a Root Nodule of Arachis villosa , Displays a Broad Spectrum of Antifungal Activity , 2022, 88, 0099-2240, 10.1128/AEM.01645-21
    69. Katherine Y. Barragán-Fonseca, Azkia Nurfikari, Els M. van de Zande, Max Wantulla, Joop J.A. van Loon, Wietse de Boer, Marcel Dicke, Insect frass and exuviae to promote plant growth and health, 2022, 27, 13601385, 646, 10.1016/j.tplants.2022.01.007
    70. Atlanta Borah, Shabiha Nudrat Hazarika, Debajit Thakur, Potentiality of actinobacteria to combat against biotic and abiotic stresses in tea [Camellia sinensis (L) O. Kuntze], 2022, 133, 1365-2672, 2314, 10.1111/jam.15734
    71. Mojde Moradi Pour, Roohallah Saberi-Riseh, Keyvan Esmaeilzadeh-Salestani, Reza Mohammadinejad, Evelin Loit, Evaluation of Bacillus velezensis for Biological Control of Rhizoctonia solani in Bean by Alginate/Gelatin Encapsulation Supplemented with Nanoparticles, 2021, 31, 1017-7825, 1373, 10.4014/jmb.2105.05001
    72. Elhagag A. Hassan, Yasser S. Mostafa, Saad Alamri, Mohamed Hashem, Nivien A. Nafady, Biosafe Management of Botrytis Grey Mold of Strawberry Fruit by Novel Bioagents, 2021, 10, 2223-7747, 2737, 10.3390/plants10122737
    73. Vishnupriya Govindaraj, Arun Kumar Subramani, Ramya Gopalakrishnan, Se-Kwon Kim, Ritu Raval, Keyur Raval, Bioethanol: A New Synergy between Marine Chitinases from Bacillus haynesii and Ethanol Production by Mucor circinelloides, 2023, 9, 2311-5637, 40, 10.3390/fermentation9010040
    74. Guendouz Dif, Hadj Ahmed Belaouni, Amine Yekkour, Yacine Goudjal, Nadjette Djemouai, Eliška Peňázová, Jana Čechová, Akila Berraf-Tebbal, Ales Eichmeier, Abdelghani Zitouni, Performance of halotolerant bacteria associated with Sahara-inhabiting halophytes Atriplex halimus L. and Lygeum spartum L. ameliorate tomato plant growth and tolerance to saline stress: from selective isolation to genomic analysis of potential determinants, 2022, 38, 0959-3993, 10.1007/s11274-021-03203-2
    75. Yongmei Lyu, Feng Zheng, Chuanxing Qiu, Meng Wang, Dujun Wang, Xiaoyang Zhang, Josef Voglmeir, Li Liu, Xiaohong Yu, Heterologous Expression of a Thermostable Chitinase from Myxococcus xanthus and Its Application for High Yield Production of Glucosamine from Shrimp Shell, 2021, 10, 2304-8158, 2808, 10.3390/foods10112808
    76. Rey Vladimir Marasigan, Edwin Alcantara, Elcid Aaron Pangilinan, Francis Tablizo, El King Morado, Shiela Mae Araiza, Kris Punayan, Benedict Maralit, Ma. Anita Bautista, Leighton Pritchard, Draft Genome Sequences of Two Streptomyces Isolates Obtained from Volcanic Soils in the Philippines , 2022, 11, 2576-098X, 10.1128/mra.01087-21
    77. Mileidy Cruz-Martín, Ernesto Rocha, Mayra Acosta-Suárez, Tatiana Pichardo, Eloisa Rodríguez, Berkis Roque, Yelenys Alvarado-Capó, Role of Bacillus pumilus chitinases in antifungal activity against Pseudocercospora fijiensis Morelet, 2023, 3, 27730786, 100019, 10.1016/j.napere.2022.100019
    78. Delfini CD, Villegas LB, Martínez MA, Baigorí MD, Extracellular Antifungal Activity of Chitinase-Producing Bacteria Isolated From Guano of Insectivorous Bats, 2021, 78, 0343-8651, 2787, 10.1007/s00284-021-02555-0
    79. Giulia Gaudioso, Giulia Marzorati, Filippo Faccenda, Tobias Weil, Fernando Lunelli, Gloriana Cardinaletti, Giovanna Marino, Ike Olivotto, Giuliana Parisi, Emilio Tibaldi, Kieran Michael Tuohy, Francesca Fava, Processed Animal Proteins from Insect and Poultry By-Products in a Fish Meal-Free Diet for Rainbow Trout: Impact on Intestinal Microbiota and Inflammatory Markers, 2021, 22, 1422-0067, 5454, 10.3390/ijms22115454
    80. F. Jabeen, T. Younis, S. Sidra, B. Muneer, Z. Nasreen, F. Saleh, S. Mumtaz, R. F. Saeed, A. S. Abbas, Extraction of chitin from edible crab shells of Callinectes sapidus and comparison with market purchased chitin, 2023, 83, 1678-4375, 10.1590/1519-6984.246520
    81. Shyam L. Kandel, Rubaiya Jesmin, Brian M. Mack, Rajtilak Majumdar, Matthew K. Gilbert, Jeffrey W. Cary, Matthew D. Lebar, Phani M. Gummadidala, Ana M. Calvo, Kanniah Rajasekaran, Anindya Chanda, Vibrio gazogenes Inhibits Aflatoxin Production Through Downregulation of Aflatoxin Biosynthetic Genes in Aspergillus flavus, 2022, 2, 2690-5442, 218, 10.1094/PHYTOFR-09-21-0067-R
    82. Xin Zhou, Jinting Wang, Fang Liu, Junmin Liang, Peng Zhao, Clement K. M. Tsui, Lei Cai, Cross-kingdom synthetic microbiota supports tomato suppression of Fusarium wilt disease, 2022, 13, 2041-1723, 10.1038/s41467-022-35452-6
    83. Vikram Poria, Anuj Rana, Arti Kumari, Jasneet Grewal, Kumar Pranaw, Surender Singh, Current Perspectives on Chitinolytic Enzymes and Their Agro-Industrial Applications, 2021, 10, 2079-7737, 1319, 10.3390/biology10121319
    84. Edgar Castro-Saines, Guadalupe Peña-Chora, Claudia Hallal-Calleros, Rodolfo Lagunes-Quintanilla, Ivan Flores-Perez, Ruben Hernandez-Ortiz, Histometric and morphological damage caused by Serratia marcescens to the tick Rhipicephalus microplus (Acari: Ixodidae), 2022, 204, 0302-8933, 10.1007/s00203-022-03275-0
    85. Monika Singh, Kapil Deo Pandey, A. C. Rathore, Shailendra Pratap Sharma, Rajendra Kumar, 2022, Chapter 13, 978-3-030-87288-5, 295, 10.1007/978-3-030-87289-2_13
    86. Arkadiy I. Garber, Jessica R. Zehnpfennig, Cody S. Sheik, Michael W. Henson, Gustavo A. Ramírez, Andrew R. Mahon, Kenneth M. Halanych, Deric R. Learman, Hideyuki Tamaki, Metagenomics of Antarctic Marine Sediment Reveals Potential for Diverse Chemolithoautotrophy, 2021, 6, 2379-5042, 10.1128/mSphere.00770-21
    87. Thiravidamani Sathyan, Mannu Jayakanthan, Subbarayalu Mohankumar, Venkatasamy Balasubramani, Eswaran Kokiladevi, Rajasekaran Ravikesavan, John Samuel Kennedy, Natarajan Sathiah, Genome profiling of an indigenous Bacillus thuringiensis isolate, T405 toxic against the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), 2022, 173, 08824010, 105820, 10.1016/j.micpath.2022.105820
    88. Pawan Kumar, Surender Singh, Kumar Pranaw, Sandeep Kumar, Balkar Singh, Vikram Poria, Bioinoculants as mitigators of multiple stresses: A ray of hope for agriculture in the darkness of climate change, 2022, 8, 24058440, e11269, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e11269
    89. Edy Kurniawan, Montira Leelakriangsak, Somrak Panphon, Antifungal Chitinase Production by Bacillus paramycoides B26 using Squid Pen Powder as a Carbon Source, 2022, 16, 09737510, 2496, 10.22207/JPAM.16.4.09
    90. M. Kumar, P. Kumar, P. Das, R. Solanki, M. K. Kapur, Proactive role of Streptomyces spp. in plant growth stimulation and management of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, 2022, 19, 1735-1472, 10457, 10.1007/s13762-021-03473-1
    91. Ecem Kaya, Leyla Nesrin Kahyaoglu, Gulum Sumnu, Development of curcumin incorporated composite films based on chitin and glucan complexes extracted from Agaricus bisporus for active packaging of chicken breast meat, 2022, 221, 01418130, 536, 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.09.025
    92. A. Bandopadhyay, T. Roy, S. Alam, S. Majumdar, N. Das, Influence of pesticide-tolerant soil bacteria for disease control caused by Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi.) Goid and plant growth promotion in Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp, 2022, 1387-585X, 10.1007/s10668-022-02684-x
    93. Somia Essa Sharawi, The Effect of Isolated Bacteria against Adult Stages of Periplaneta americana (Blattodea: Blattidae) and Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) using Spraying Methods as a Biological Control, 2023, 09737510, 10.22207/JPAM.17.1.46
    94. Kashif ur Rehman, Clemens Hollah, Karin Wiesotzki, Volker Heinz, Kemal Aganovic, Rashid ur Rehman, Janos-Istvan Petrusan, Longyu Zheng, Jibin Zhang, Summar Sohail, Muhammad Khalid Mansoor, Christos I. Rumbos, Christos Athanassiou, Minmin Cai, Insect-Derived Chitin and Chitosan: A Still Unexploited Resource for the Edible Insect Sector, 2023, 15, 2071-1050, 4864, 10.3390/su15064864
    95. Jianwei Xu, Min Lv, Tianze Li, Houpeng Wen, Hui Xu, Optimization of Osthole in the Lactone Ring as an Agrochemical Candidate: Synthesis, Characterization, and Pesticidal Activities of Osthole Amide/Ester Derivatives and Their Effects on Morphological Changes of Mite Epidermis, 2023, 0021-8561, 10.1021/acs.jafc.3c00211
    96. Kelly Dwyer, Ian S. Bentley, David A. Fitzpatrick, Aliabbas A. Saleh, Emma Tighe, Eibhilin McGleenan, Darragh Gaffney, Gary Walsh, Recombinant production, characterization and industrial application testing of a novel acidic exo/endo-chitinase from Rasamsonia emersonii, 2023, 27, 1431-0651, 10.1007/s00792-023-01293-4
    97. Dinesh Panwar, Poonam Saini, Jitendra Kumar Vats, 2023, Chapter 14, 978-981-99-0029-9, 367, 10.1007/978-981-99-0030-5_14
    98. Talwinder Kaur, Kanika Khanna, Sonika Sharma, Rajesh K. Manhas, Mechanistic insights into the role of actinobacteria as potential biocontrol candidates against fungal phytopathogens, 2023, 0233-111X, 10.1002/jobm.202300027
    99. Sih-Huei Tsai, Yi-Chun Hsiao, Peter E. Chang, Chen-En Kuo, Mei-Chun Lai, Huey-wen Chuang, Exploring the Biologically Active Metabolites Produced by Bacillus cereus for Plant Growth Promotion, Heat Stress Tolerance, and Resistance to Bacterial Soft Rot in Arabidopsis, 2023, 13, 2218-1989, 676, 10.3390/metabo13050676
    100. Jason R. Devlin, Judith Behnsen, Karen M. Ottemann, Bacterial Chitinases and Their Role in Human Infection, 2023, 0019-9567, 10.1128/iai.00549-22
    101. Gaytri Mahajan, Vibhuti Sharma, Reena Gupta, Chitinase: a potent biocatalyst and its diverse applications, 2023, 1024-2422, 1, 10.1080/10242422.2023.2218524
    102. Samuel Cavalcante do Amaral, Luciana Pereira Xavier, Vítor Vasconcelos, Agenor Valadares Santos, Cyanobacteria: A Promising Source of Antifungal Metabolites, 2023, 21, 1660-3397, 359, 10.3390/md21060359
    103. Oana-Alina Boiu-Sicuia, Radu Cristian Toma, Camelia Filofteia Diguță, Florentina Matei, Călina Petruța Cornea, In Vitro Evaluation of Some Endophytic Bacillus to Potentially Inhibit Grape and Grapevine Fungal Pathogens, 2023, 12, 2223-7747, 2553, 10.3390/plants12132553
    104. Elias K. Zegeye, Vivian S. Lin, Jamie R. Nunez, Nick A. Sconzo, Samuel O. Purvine, Aaron T. Wright, James J. Moran, Enzymatically hydrolyzed fluorescence-based chemical probe enables in situ mapping of chitinase activity in the rhizosphere, 2023, 00380717, 109122, 10.1016/j.soilbio.2023.109122
    105. Essam Kotb, Amira H. Alabdalall, Azzah I. Alghamdi, Ibtisam M. Ababutain, Sumayh A. Aldakeel, Safa K. Al-Zuwaid, Batool M. Algarudi, Sakina M. Algarudi, Asmaa A. Ahmed, Ahmed M. Albarrag, Screening for chitin degrading bacteria in the environment of Saudi Arabia and characterization of the most potent chitinase from Streptomyces variabilis Am1, 2023, 13, 2045-2322, 10.1038/s41598-023-38876-2
    106. Kittipong Chanworawit, Pachara Wangsoonthorn, Pinsurang Deevong, Characterization of chitinolytic bacteria newly isolated from the termite Microcerotermes sp. and their biocontrol potential against plant pathogenic fungi, 2023, 1347-6947, 10.1093/bbb/zbad080
    107. Geum-Jae Jeong, Fazlurrahman Khan, Nazia Tabassum, Young-Mog Kim, Chitinases as key virulence factors in microbial pathogens: Understanding their role and potential as therapeutic targets, 2023, 01418130, 126021, 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2023.126021
    108. Kasumi Takeuchi, Masayo Ogiso, Tomohiro Morohoshi, Shigemi Seo, Glutamate Positively Regulates Chitinase Activity and the Biocontrol Efficacy of Pseudomonas protegens, 2023, 36, 0894-0282, 323, 10.1094/MPMI-09-22-0178-R
    109. Phung Thi Bich Hoa, Nguyen Hoang Tue, Huynh Thi Quynh Trang, Hoang Anh Thu, Le Ngoc Huyen Nhung, Nguyen Ngoc Luong, Nguyen Xuan Huy, Nguyen Quang Duc Tien, Nguyen Hoang Loc, Enhancement of resistance against fungal pathogens in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cultivar L14 by heterologous expression of gene encoding chitinase 42 kDa from Trichoderma asperellum SH16, 2023, 160, 02546299, 673, 10.1016/j.sajb.2023.07.056
    110. Anamika Singh, Samina Mazahar, Shilpa Samir Chapadgaonkar, Priti Giri, Abhilasha Shourie, Phyto-microbiome to mitigate abiotic stress in crop plants, 2023, 14, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1210890
    111. Nathanael D. Arnold, Daniel Garbe, Thomas B. Brück, Isolation, biochemical characterization, and genome sequencing of two high‐quality genomes of a novel chitinolytic Jeongeupia species, 2023, 12, 2045-8827, 10.1002/mbo3.1372
    112. Hongyu Ran, Yan Wang, Keyu Wei, Ying Liu, Gang Wang, Kun Zhu, Spatial and temporal changes of charosphere hotspots with or without nitrogen additions, 2023, 5, 2524-7867, 10.1007/s42773-023-00247-5
    113. L.V. Polishchuk, Distribution of genes encoding chitinases gh19 in genomes of the Streptomyces albovinaceus subgroup, 2023, 55, 23087099, 225, 10.15407/frg2023.03.225
    114. Anamika Roy, Mamun Mandal, Sujit Das, Randeep Rakwal, Ganesh Kumar Agrawal, Abhijit Sarkar, 2023, Chapter 10, 978-3-031-40197-8, 211, 10.1007/978-3-031-40198-5_10
    115. Pooja Verma, Priyanka Chandra, Arvind Kumar Rai, Arvind Kumar, Kailash Prajapat, Parul Sundha, Nirmalendu Basak, Anita Mann, Baljeet Singh Saharan, Sandeep Bedwal, Rajender Kumar Yadav, Native rhizobacteria suppresses spot blotch disease, improves growth and yield of wheat under salt–affected soils, 2023, 10, 2667064X, 100234, 10.1016/j.stress.2023.100234
    116. Rajeshwari Negi, Babita Sharma, Simranjeet Kaur, Tanvir Kaur, Sofia Sharief Khan, Sanjeev Kumar, Seema Ramniwas, Sarvesh Rustagi, Sangram Singh, Ashutosh Kumar Rai, Divjot Kour, Neelam Thakur, Ajar Nath Yadav, Microbial antagonists: diversity, formulation and applications for management of pest–pathogens, 2023, 33, 2536-9342, 10.1186/s41938-023-00748-2
    117. Alia Telli, Sabrine Darem, Mohamed Amine Gacem, Aminata Ould El Hadj-Khelil, 2024, 9780323952415, 197, 10.1016/B978-0-323-95241-5.00003-4
    118. L. V. Polishchuk, Differences between genes of Streptomyces griseus HUT 6037 and S. coelicolor A3(2) that encode chitinases GH19, 2023, 33, 2415-3826, 146, 10.7124/FEEO.v33.1583
    119. Irena Todorović, Yvan Moënne-Loccoz, Vera Raičević, Jelena Jovičić-Petrović, Daniel Muller, Microbial diversity in soils suppressive to Fusarium diseases, 2023, 14, 1664-462X, 10.3389/fpls.2023.1228749
    120. Ellen Gonçalves de Oliveira, Clécio Alonso da Costa Filho, Rodrigo Araújo Lima Rodrigues, An overview of viral chitinases: General properties and biotechnological potential, 2023, 1535-3702, 10.1177/15353702231208408
    121. Imam Hasan, Francesco Gai, Simona Cirrincione, Simona Rimoldi, Giulio Saroglia, Genciana Terova, Chitinase and Insect Meal in Aquaculture Nutrition: A Comprehensive Overview of the Latest Achievements, 2023, 8, 2410-3888, 607, 10.3390/fishes8120607
    122. Changqing Xuan, Mengjiao Feng, Xin Li, Yinjie Hou, Chunhua Wei, Xian Zhang, Genome-Wide Identification and Expression Analysis of Chitinase Genes in Watermelon under Abiotic Stimuli and Fusarium oxysporum Infection, 2024, 25, 1422-0067, 638, 10.3390/ijms25010638
    123. Hossam S. El-Beltagi, Asmaa A. Halema, Zainab M. Almutairi, Hayfa Habes Almutairi, Nagwa I. Elarabi, Abdelhadi A. Abdelhadi, Ahmed R. Henawy, Heba A. R. Abdelhaleem, Draft genome analysis for Enterobacter kobei, a promising lead bioremediation bacterium, 2024, 11, 2296-4185, 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1335854
    124. Aymen Ezzine, Safa Ben Hadj Mohamed, Sofiane Bezzine, Yosra Aoudi, Mohamed Rabeh Hajlaoui, Laura Baciou, Issam Smaali, Improved Expression of a Thermostable GH18 Bacterial Chitinase in Two Different Escherichia coli Strains and Its Potential Use in Plant Protection and Biocontrol of Phytopathogenic Fungi, 2024, 1073-6085, 10.1007/s12033-023-01041-1
    125. Thiago Moura Rocha, Paulo Ricardo Franco Marcelino, Rogger Alessandro Mata Da Costa, Daylin Rubio-Ribeaux, Fernanda Gonçalves Barbosa, Silvio Silvério da Silva, Agricultural Bioinputs Obtained by Solid-State Fermentation: From Production in Biorefineries to Sustainable Agriculture, 2024, 16, 2071-1050, 1076, 10.3390/su16031076
    126. Peiqi Zhang, Jose Huguet-Tapia, Zhao Peng, Sanzhen Liu, Ken Obasa, Anna K. Block, Frank F. White, Yvonne Nygård, Genome analysis and hyphal movement characterization of the hitchhiker endohyphal Enterobacter sp. from Rhizoctonia solani , 2024, 0099-2240, 10.1128/aem.02245-23
    127. Venkatesh Kumar, Jeyarani Subramanian, Murugan Marimuthu, Mohankumar Subbarayalu, Venkatachalam Ramasamy, Karthikeyan Gandhi, Manikandan Ariyan, Diversity and functional characteristics of culturable bacterial endosymbionts from cassava whitefly biotype Asia II-5, Bemisia tabaci, 2024, 14, 2190-572X, 10.1007/s13205-024-03949-0
    128. Younes Rezaee Danesh, Marika Pellegrini, Ahmet Akköprü, Beatrice Farda, Gökhan Boyno, Rihab Djebaili, 2024, 9780443191503, 145, 10.1016/B978-0-443-19150-3.00015-1
    129. Ghada M. El-Sayed, Maha T. H. Emam, Maher A. Hammad, Shaymaa H. Mahmoud, Gene Cloning, Heterologous Expression, and In Silico Analysis of Chitinase B from Serratia marcescens for Biocontrol of Spodoptera frugiperda Larvae Infesting Maize Crops, 2024, 29, 1420-3049, 1466, 10.3390/molecules29071466
    130. Nadeem Iqbal, Riyazuddin Riyazuddin, Muhammad Nauman, Zalán Czékus, Malik Tahir Hayat, Péter Poór, Attila Ördög, 2024, 10.5772/intechopen.1004924
    131. Manoj Kumar Mishra, Ajay Kumar Shukla, Suresh Kumar Dev, Razi Ahmad, Exploring the Depths of Marine Biotechnology: Discoveries, Diversity, and Future Horizons, 2024, 13, 22115501, 26, 10.2174/0122115501291361240213105224
    132. Vikram Poria, Sandeep Kumar, Babett Greff, Pawan Kumar, Prakriti Jhilta, Balkar Singh, Surender Singh, 2024, 9781119851127, 224, 10.1002/9781119851158.ch15
    133. Shaymaa A. Ismail, Bahgat Fayed, Reda M. Abdelhameed, Amira A. Hassan, Chitinase-functionalized UiO-66 framework nanoparticles active against multidrug-resistant Candida Auris, 2024, 24, 1471-2180, 10.1186/s12866-024-03414-1
    134. Natalia Caetano Vasques, Marco Antonio Nogueira, Mariangela Hungria, Increasing Application of Multifunctional Bacillus for Biocontrol of Pests and Diseases and Plant Growth Promotion: Lessons from Brazil, 2024, 14, 2073-4395, 1654, 10.3390/agronomy14081654
    135. Sristi Das, Suvasri Dutta, Saibal Ghosh, Abhishek Mukherjee, Chitinolytic Microorganisms for Biological Control of Plant Pathogens: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis, 2024, 02612194, 106888, 10.1016/j.cropro.2024.106888
    136. Munendra Kumar, Nargis Taranum, Biji Balan, Prateek Kumar, Amit Singh Dhaulaniya, 2024, Chapter 22, 978-981-97-5164-8, 591, 10.1007/978-981-97-5165-5_22
    137. Abdul Rasheed Kaleri, Jiahua Ma, Ali Murad Jakhar, Awais Ahmed, Yahya Faqir, Chengjia Tan, Slaviša Stanković, Martin Raspor, Composting of Cow-Dung-Amended Soil by the Dung Beetle Catharsius molossus L. Improves Bacterial Ecological Functions Related to Nitrogen Mineralization and Human and Plant Pathogenesis, 2024, 14, 2073-4395, 2091, 10.3390/agronomy14092091
    138. Ihtisham Ul Haq, Kashif Rahim, Galal Yahya, Bushra Ijaz, Sajida Maryam, Najeeba Parre Paker, Eco-smart biocontrol strategies utilizing potent microbes for sustainable management of phytopathogenic diseases, 2024, 44, 2215017X, e00859, 10.1016/j.btre.2024.e00859
    139. Ni Zhan, Zhen Wang, Yilin Zhang, Luyan Zhang, Xinyu Fang, Xunyou Yan, Yanping Wu, Jinghai Li, Shuqing Li, Zhenxia Shi, Hongbo Zhao, Comparative transcriptomics and bioinformatics profiling provide insights into resistance to Fusarium wilt in melon, 2024, 0032-0862, 10.1111/ppa.14011
    140. Zohra Chaddad, Mouad Lamrabet, Meryeme Bennis, Kaoutar Kaddouri, Soufiane Alami, Omar Bouhnik, Mustapha Missbah El Idrissi, 2024, Chapter 3, 978-981-97-3472-6, 71, 10.1007/978-981-97-3473-3_3
    141. Yan Wu, Shangrong Hu, Qixuan Mao, Dongmei Shi, Xiangyu Liu, Busheng Liu, Liyuhan Hua, Gao Hu, Can Li, Hongxia Duan, Bin Tang, The impact of three thioxothiazolidin compounds on trehalase activity and development of Spodoptera frugiperda larvae, 2024, 12, 2167-8359, e18233, 10.7717/peerj.18233
    142. Emanuela Bazzoni, Carla Cacciotto, Rosanna Zobba, Marco Pittau, Vito Martella, Alberto Alberti, Bat Ecology and Microbiome of the Gut: A Narrative Review of Associated Potentials in Emerging and Zoonotic Diseases, 2024, 14, 2076-2615, 3043, 10.3390/ani14203043
    143. Jakub Dobrzyński, Aleksandra Naziębło, Paenibacillus as a Biocontrol Agent for Fungal Phytopathogens: Is P. polymyxa the Only One Worth Attention?, 2024, 87, 0095-3628, 10.1007/s00248-024-02450-8
    144. Valeria Valenzuela Ruiz, Edgar Cubedo-Ruiz, Maria Maldonado Vega, Jaime Garatuza Payan, Enrico Yépez González, Fannie Isela Parra Cota, Sergio de los Santos Villalobos, Cultivable Rhizosphere Microbial Community Structure in the Yaqui Valley’s Agroecosystems, 2024, 8, 2571-8789, 112, 10.3390/soilsystems8040112
    145. Nguyen Thi Thanh Loi, Nguyen Tran Mai Anh, Ho Manh Tuong, Vu Thi Hanh Nguyen, Quach Ngoc Tung, Nguyen Thi Thu An, Do Tien Phat, Chu Hoang Ha, Phi Quyet Tien, Biocontrol potentiality of Burkholderia vietnamiensis nrv12 against the rice blast fungus magnaporthe oryzae, 2024, 22, 2815-5912, 341, 10.15625/vjbt-20167
    146. Thiyagarajan Deborah Winssy, Nellaiappan Olaganathan Gopal, Pandiyan Indiragandhi, Venkatasamy Balasubramani, Rangasamy Anandham, Chitinase Producing Gut-Associated Bacteria Affected the Survivability of the Insect Spodoptera frugiperda, 2024, 16, 1945-0494, 10.31083/j.fbe1602015
    147. Dinh Minh Tran, To Uyen Huynh, Tu Oanh Do, Le Nguyen Tieu Ngoc, Iuliia Pentekhina, Characterization and genome sequence of chitinase-producing Chitiniphilus shinanonensis, 2024, 24059854, 100320, 10.1016/j.egg.2024.100320
    148. Kamel A. Abd-Elsalam, Rawan K. Hassan, Toka E. Abdelkhalek, Hassan Almoammar, Ali A. A. El-Sayed, 2025, Chapter 11, 978-981-97-7311-4, 301, 10.1007/978-981-97-7312-1_11
    149. Elizabeth M. Wyman, W. Scott Grayburn, Matthew K. Gilbert, Matthew D. Lebar, Jessica M. Lohmar, Jeffrey W. Cary, Thomas J. C. Sauters, Antonis Rokas, Ana M. Calvo, An environmental isolate of Pseudomonas, 20EI1, reduces Aspergillus flavus growth in an iron-dependent manner and alters secondary metabolism, 2025, 15, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1514950
    150. Rasiska Tarigan, Lisnawita Lisnawita, A.R. Tantawi, Catur Hermanto, A. Sudarmaji, R. Naila Khusna Syarifah, L. Na'imatul Bayyinah, H. Rahayuani Ratnaningsih, Z. Az Zahroh, W. Hidayati, Isolation and characterization of potential amylolytic, proteolytic, gelatinolytic and chitinolytic properties in bacterial antagonists obtained from chilli plants (Colletotrichum spp.), 2025, 158, 2117-4458, 03021, 10.1051/bioconf/202515803021
    151. Yongkang Liu, Fan Yang, Sijing Wan, Xianzhong Wang, Liwen Guan, Yan Li, Caidi Xu, Binghua Xie, Shigui Wang, Xiao-Ling Tan, Bin Tang, Comparative transcriptomic and metabolomics analysis of ovary in Nilaparvata lugens after trehalase inhibition, 2025, 26, 1471-2164, 10.1186/s12864-025-11268-8
    152. T. Z. Esikova, V. N. Polivtseva, T. O. Anokhina, New Herbicide-Degrading Rhizosphere Strains Capable of Biocontrol of Phytopathogenic Microorganisms, 2025, 94, 0026-2617, 139, 10.1134/S0026261724607577
    153. Francisco González-Serrano, Yordan J. Romero-Contreras, Alberto H. Orta, M. Delia Basanta, Hugo Morales, Gabriela Sandoval García, Elena Bello-López, A. S. Escobedo-Muñoz, Víctor H. Bustamante, Víctor Ávila-Akerberg, Miguel Ángel Cevallos, Mario Serrano, Eria A. Rebollar, Amphibian skin bacteria contain a wide repertoire of genes linked to their antifungal capacities, 2025, 41, 0959-3993, 10.1007/s11274-025-04292-z
    154. Mayra Eleonora Beltrán Pineda, José Castellanos-Rozo, Bacterial insecticides beyond Bacillus thuringiensis, 2025, 7, 2524-4167, 10.1186/s42483-024-00306-0
    155. Omolara Sola Majengbasan, John Onolame Unuofin, Michael Olawale Daramola, Samuel Ayodele Iwarere, Khomotso Semenya, Olubusola Ayoola Odeniyi, Chitinous waste depolymerization and biocontrol potential of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia 3E chitinase against mycophytopathogens and Anopheles gambiae instar 3, 2025, 30, 2589014X, 102095, 10.1016/j.biteb.2025.102095
    156. Dinh Sy Nguyen, Le Nguyen Tieu Ngoc, Bich Thuy Vu, Phuong Thi Pham, Iuliia Pentekhina, Dinh Minh Tran, Genome resource of chitinolytic Brevibacillus formosus YSY-2.2, 2025, 24059854, 100344, 10.1016/j.egg.2025.100344
    157. Inam Ullah, Hafza Wajeeha Ijaz, Yudie Ma, Minglin Lang, 2025, 10.5772/intechopen.1009759
    158. T Ganesh Kumar, Tapas Paul, Rajive Kumar Brahmchari, Saurav Kumar, 2025, Chapter 17, 978-981-96-0269-8, 371, 10.1007/978-981-96-0270-4_17
    159. Elizabeth Temitope Alori, Abidemi Olubusayo Onaolapo, Ayibanoa Lekoo Ibaba, Cell free supernatant for sustainable crop production, 2025, 9, 2571-581X, 10.3389/fsufs.2025.1549048
    160. Tamara Coja, Pauline Adriaanse, Judy Choi, Antonio Finizio, Maeva Giraudo, Thomas Kuhl, Francesca Metruccio, Emily McVey, Martin Paparella, Silvia Pieper, Eugenio Scanziani, Ivana Teodorovic, Paul Van der Brink, Martin Wilks, Marina Marinovich, Franco Ferilli, Alex Gobbi, Martina Panzarea, Giorgia Vianello, Roberto Lava, Statement concerning the review of the approval of the basic substances chitosan and chitosan hydrochloride when used in plant protection, 2025, 23, 18314732, 10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9318
    161. Dung Le, Thuy Thi Le, Tuong Manh Ho, Duong Thai Binh Pham, Lisianthus Fusaria wilt: inter- and intra-specific variation in virulence of pathogens and biocontrol of the disease based on vietnamese Streptomyces goshikiensis STR61, 2025, 136, 1365-2672, 10.1093/jambio/lxaf079
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2017 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(13878) PDF downloads(1513) Cited by(161)

Article outline

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog