Optimization of conditions for in vitro development of Trichoderma viride-based biofilms as potential inoculants
Language English Country United States Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- MeSH
- Biofilms * MeSH
- Culture Media chemistry metabolism MeSH
- Mycelium growth & development physiology MeSH
- Agricultural Inoculants genetics growth & development physiology MeSH
- Trichoderma genetics growth & development physiology MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Culture Media MeSH
Biofilms represent mixed communities present in a diverse range of environments; however, their utility as inoculants is less investigated. Our investigation was aimed towards in vitro development of biofilms using fungal mycelia (Trichoderma viride) as matrices and nitrogen-fixing and P-solubilizing bacteria as partners, as a prelude to their use as biofertilizers (biofilmed biofertilizers, BBs) and biocontrol agents for different crops. The most suitable media in terms of population counts, fresh mass and dry biomass for Trichoderma and Bacillus subtilis/Pseudomonas fluorescens was found to be Pikovskaya broth ± 1 % CaCO(3), while for Trichoderma and Azotobacter chroococcum, Jensen's medium was most optimal. The respective media were then used for optimization of the inoculation rate of the partners in terms of sequence of addition of partners, fresh/dry mass of biofilms and population counts of partners for efficient film formation. Microscopic observations revealed significant differences in the progress of growth of biofilms and dual cultures. In the biofilms, the bacteria were observed growing intermingled within the fungal mycelia mat. Further, biofilm formation was compared under static and shaking conditions and the fresh mass of biofilms was higher in the former. Such biofilms are being further characterized under in vitro conditions, before using them as inoculants with crops.
See more in PubMed
Mol Microbiol. 2004 Dec;54(5):1212-23 PubMed
Lancet. 2001 Jul 14;358(9276):135-8 PubMed
Int J Med Microbiol. 2002 Jul;292(2):107-13 PubMed
J Bacteriol. 2004 Jul;186(14):4427-40 PubMed
Trends Microbiol. 2005 Jan;13(1):20-6 PubMed
Phytopathology. 2006 Feb;96(2):190-4 PubMed
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2010 Feb;71(2):169-85 PubMed
Mol Microbiol. 1998 Oct;30(1):7-17 PubMed
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2005 Sep;29(4):795-811 PubMed
Annu Rev Med. 2008;59:415-28 PubMed
Curr Opin Microbiol. 2006 Aug;9(4):359-64 PubMed
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2006 Jan;254(1):34-40 PubMed
Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2004 Jul;86(1):1-25 PubMed
Braz J Microbiol. 2009 Apr;40(2):404-10 PubMed
J Biosci. 2003 Mar;28(2):243-7 PubMed
J Bacteriol. 2003 Aug;185(15):4585-92 PubMed
Environ Microbiol. 2010 Jun;12(6):1377-83 PubMed
Phytopathology. 2002 Sep;92(9):976-85 PubMed
Nature. 2006 May 18;441(7091):300-2 PubMed
Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2001;39:461-90 PubMed
