ArticleCurrent microbiology2024
Cyanobacteria-Fungi Co-Cultures: Which Partner Contributes to Antifungal Activity?
Article in Current microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sustainable approaches to manage fusarium root rot in faba bean.International microbiology : the official journal of the Spanish Society for Microbiology · 2025Article
- A Pipeline for the Isolation and Cultivation of Microalgae and Cyanobacteria from Hypersaline Environments.Microorganisms · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cyanobacteria synthesize secondary metabolites with antifungal activity, making them potential biopesticide agents for sustainable, eco-friendly agriculture. Programmes to identify Cyanobacterial strains with effective bioactivity generally screen strains maintained in culture collections. These strains are often monoclonal but non-axenic and this may potentially influence the bioactivity of the generated biomass. The present study investigated in vitro antifungal activity of Nostoc muscorum MACC-189 and N. linckia MACC-612 strains co-isolated with fungal co-partners and maintained in the Mosonmagyaróvár Algal Culture Collection (MACC). The fungal co-partners were isolated from the Cyanobacterial stock cultures and identified as Purpureocillium lilacinum and Sarocladium sp., respectively. The cultures were tested against seven phytopathogens. The phytopathogenic fungi were grown on potato dextrose agar plates and suspension cultures of the Cyanobacteria-fungi and isolated fungal co-partners were placed in the centre of the plate. Antifungal effects were assessed semi-quantitatively after 10 days of incubation. The Cyanobacteria-fungal co-cultures had antifungal activity against Monilinia fructigena and Aspergillus sp. with the N. muscorum/P. lilacinum culture being the most effective. The fungal isolates inhibited M. fructigena with P. lilacinum having a dose-dependent response but did not inhibit Aspergillus sp. This suggested that the antifungal effect of the Cyanobacterial cultures on M. fructigena was due to the fungal partner rather than the cyanobacterium while the antifungal effect on Aspergillus sp. was due to the cyanobacterium partner. As it was not possible to maintain living axenic N. muscorum and N. linckia cultures, this could not be conclusively confirmed. These results highlight the importance of either using axenic cultures or identifying the co-isolates when testing Cyanobacteria cultures for antifungal bioactivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.