Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Microbiol.
Sec. Microbe and Virus Interactions with Plants
Volume 15 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1502788
This article is part of the Research Topic Microbial Ecology of Plant Disease Understanding From Diversity to Function View all 3 articles

Characterization and bioefficacy of grapevine bacterial endophytes against Colletotrichum gloeosporioides causing anthracnose disease

Provisionally accepted
Somnath Kadappa Holkar Somnath Kadappa Holkar 1*Vrushali C. Bhanbhane Vrushali C. Bhanbhane 1Prabhavati Ghotgalkar Prabhavati Ghotgalkar 1Harshavardhan N. Markad Harshavardhan N. Markad 2Tushar D. Lodha Tushar D. Lodha 3Sujoy Saha Sujoy Saha 1Kaushik Banerjee Kaushik Banerjee 1
  • 1 National Research Centre for Grapes (ICAR), Pune, India
  • 2 Govt. College of Agri-Business Management, Kashti, Malegaon, India
  • 3 Agharkar Research Institute, Pune, Maharashtra, India

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.), one of the economically important fruit crops cultivated worldwide, harbours diverse endophytic bacteria (EBs) responsible for managing various fungal diseases. Anthracnose (Colletotrichum gloeosporioides) (Penz.) Penz. & Sacc. is one of the major constraints in grape quality production, therefore its management poses a serious concern among grape growers. Among the 50 EBs isolated from healthy leaf segments from the eight grapevine genotypes, biologically potential 20 EBs were purified and identified based on morphological, and biological characteristics and sequence analysis of 16S rRNA region. The antagonistic activities of EBs against Colletotrichum gloeosporioides were studied in vitro conditions. The colony morphologies of EBs are white and yellow-coloured colonies, circular to irregular in shape, and entire, and flat margins. Among the 20 purified EBs, 19 isolates were found to be Gram-positive except one i.e., MS2 isolate. The 12 isolates reduced nitrate and 14 isolates produced urease enzyme. The in vitro assay revealed that two isolates, SB4 and RF1, inhibited 56.1% and 55.6% mycelial growth of C. gloeosporioides, respectively. Further, the identity of EBs was confirmed through PCR amplification of the 16S rRNA region resulting in ~1400 bp size amplicons. The sequence analysis of representative 15 isolates revealed that 5 EB isolates viz., SB5, CS2, RG1, RF1, C1 were identified as Bacillus subtilis with >99% sequence identity, two EBs viz., SB3, and CS1 were identified as B. subtilis subsp. subtilis, two EBs viz., SB1, and CS4 were identified as B. licheniformis. The SB2 isolate was identified as Bacillus sp., () whereas SB4 as Brevibacillus borstelensis (, TH1 as B. velezensis(, TH2 as B. tequilensis, CS3 as B. pumilus and MS1 as Micrococcus luteus were identified. The phylogenetic analysis of 16S rRNA sequence revealed eight distinct clades and showed the close clustering of identified species with the reference species retrieved from NCBI GenBank. The current investigation provides the scope for further field evaluations of these endophytic microbes for managing anthracnose disease.

    Keywords: Font: Italic, Complex Script Font: Italic Font: Italic, Complex Script Font: Italic Font: Not Italic, Complex Script Font: Not Italic Deleted:, SB4 and RF1 Bacillus subtilis., Brevibacillus borstelensis, biological control, endosymbionts Micrococcus luteus

    Received: 27 Sep 2024; Accepted: 05 Nov 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Holkar, Bhanbhane, Ghotgalkar, Markad, Lodha, Saha and Banerjee. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Somnath Kadappa Holkar, National Research Centre for Grapes (ICAR), Pune, India

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.