i. entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Review of literature
11
I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents
In the era before microscopes, fungi visible to the naked eye helped to
gave birth to invertebrate pathology as a modern field of study. Early
observations of diseases in useful insects, the honey bee and the silkworm,
included documentation of mycoses. Biological control using entomopathogenic
fungi is especially promising as these microorganisms present unique
mechanisms of action during the infection and colonization in the host (Charnley,
1997). Both general and particular historical aspects of fungal entomopathogens
and their use as microbial control agents have been thoroughly reviewed by
Boucias and Pendland (1998); Roberts and St. Leger (2004). A comprehensive
international program facilitated a wide array of studies that serve to illustrate
well the marriage of basic and applied research needed to develop a fungal
pathogen for use as a microbial control agent (Castrillo et al., 2005).
Development of an effective mycoinsecticide depends on selection of an isolate
that is highly virulent for the target host and which is genetically and biologically
stable (Milner et al., 2002). Comparison of entomopathogens with conventional
chemical pesticides depends on their efficiency and cost. In addition to
efficiency, there are advantages in using microbial control agents, such as human
safety and other non-target organisms; pesticide residues are minimized in food
and biodiversity would be increased in managed ecosystems (Shahid et al.,
2012).
More than 700 known fungal species from 100 genera have adopted an
entomopathogenic lifestyle and occupy a unique, highly specialized nutritional
![Page 2: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Review of literature
12
niche in the kingdom Fungi, encompassing more than 80,000 species.
Entomopathogenicity arose and was lost in many phyla during fungal evolution.
With the principal exception of the higher basidiomycetes, entomopathogenic
species are found within every major fungal lineage and in almost all ecosystems.
The largest numbers of fungal species that are pathogenic to insects belong to the
order Hypocreales (Dikarya, Ascomycota, Pezizomycotina, Sordariomycetes,
Hypocreomycetidae) (Molnar et al., 2010). Most of the taxonomic groups that
can parasitize insects contain entomopathogenic genera, such as Metarhizium,
Beauveria, Verticillium, Nomuraea, Entomophthora, and Neozygites, to name a
few (Deshphande, 1999). They are being developed as BCAs (biocontrol agents)
for the biological control of pests (Burges, 1998; Butt et al., 1999) and were
comprehensively listed (Butt et al., 2001).
Entomopathogenic fungi were reported to infect a wide range of insects
including lepidopterous larvae, aphids and thrips, which are of great concern in
agriculture worldwide (Roberts and Humber, 1981). Aspergillus flavus, an
entomopathogenic fungus, was reported to be pathogenic against mosquito
species Aedes fluviatilis and Culex quinquefasciatus by Moraes et al. (2001) and
Aspergillus clavatus, was reported to be pathogenic to Aedes aegypti L.,
Anopheles gambiae and Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera) by Seye et al. (2009).
Metarhizium anisopliae (Metsch.) Sorokin and other entomopathogenic fungi are
being examined as potential biological insect control agents (Lacey et al.,
2001).Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana have been studied and
applied in controlling of rice Brown planthoppers, rice bug, coconut beetle,
grasshoppers, termite (Chinh et al. 2001; Thuy et al. 2001; Loc, 1997a,b; Loc et
al., 1999, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005). The susceptibility of Agrilus planipennis
![Page 3: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Review of literature
13
Fairmaire (Coleoptera) to entomopathogenic fungi Beauveria bassiana and
Metarhizium anisopliae was reported by Liu and Bauer (2006). El-Sinary and
Rizk (2007) reported pathogenecity of Beauveria bassiana on Galleria
melonella. M. anisopliae was found to be more virulent towards Redpalm weevil
(Rhynchophorus ferrugineus) (Coleoptera) compared to B. bassiana in a study
conducted by Gindin et al. (2006). Both the fungi were reported to be pathogenic
to tomato spider mite (Tetranychus evansi) (Acari: Tetranychidae) (Bugeme et
al., 2008). Prasad et al. (2010) reported pathogenecity of Beauveria bassiana
against larvae of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera). Metarhizium anisopliae
spp. were reported to be pathogenic to insects belonging to different orders which
include Grasshopper (Orthoptera) (Thomas et al. 1997), Termites (Isoptera)
(Andrew 2000), locusts (Schistocerca gregaria) (Bateman and Luke, 2000)
Spittlebug, Mahanarva posticata (Homoptera) (Miller et al. 2004), Broad mite
(Polyphagotarsonemus latus Bank) (Nugroho and Ibrahim.2004), Epilachna
beetle (Hemisepilachna vigntioctopunctata) (Padmaja and Gurvinder Kaur,
1998), Scab mite (Psoroptes ovis) (Sarcoptiformes) (Lekimme et al. 2008),
Ocinara varians (lepidoptera) (Hussain et al. 2009), Spider mite (Tetranychus
urticae) (Bugeme et al. 2009), black citrus aphid (Toxoptera citricidus) and citrus
pyrilla (Diaphorina citri) (Nguyen et al. 2010), housefly, Musca domestica L.
(diptera) (Sharififard et al. 2011). Bioefficacy of Metarhizium anisopliae against
Dysdercus cingulatus (Fab.) (Hemiptera: Pyrrhocoridae), Oxycarenus
hyalinipennis (Costa) (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae), Aphis craccivora (Koch)
(Homoptera: Aphididae), Mylabris pustulata (Thunb.) (Coleoptera: Meloidae),
Pericallia ricini Fab. (Lepidoptera: Arctiidae), Spodoptera litura (Fab.)
![Page 4: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Review of literature
14
and Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) was reported by
Sahayaraj and Francis, (2010) and he suggested the efficient use of the fungus for
the control of Helicoverpa armigera. M. anisopliae displays a remarkably broad
host range, spanning from insects to ticks and other members of the class
Arachnida (Chandler et al., 2000; Roberts and St. Leger, 2004). The
pathogenicity of M. anisopliae isolate obtained from dead cadavers of mole
formula cricket (Gryllotalpa orientalis) (Orthoptera) was reported to be
pathogenic to cockroach (Periplaneta americana) by Wakil et al. (2012).
M. anisopliae has been reported as pathogen for stored product pests by
Khashaveh et al. (2008). Therefore, this fungus holds great potential for use as
biological control agent (Butt et al., 2001). Virulence (speed of kill) of a fungal
entomopathogen against a particular host insect depends on biological properties
of the specific isolate-host combination, together with factors such as fungal dose
and further, intrinsic and extrinsic factors affect the actual pattern and extent of
fungal growth in vivo was poorly understood, according to him. Variation in
virulence between isolates, species and doses is determined more by quantitative
rather than qualitative differences in fungal growth kinetics (Anderson et al.,
2011).
II. Biocontrol of cockroach
Cockroaches, described as second only to termites in economic
importance, have been the object of major control efforts by the pest control
industry. Cockroaches live in a wide range of environments around the world.
Pest species of cockroaches adapt readily to a variety of environments, but prefer
warm conditions found within buildings. It is proven or suspected carrier of the
organisms causing viral diseases such as poliomyelitis (Prado et al., 2002) and
![Page 5: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Review of literature
15
also diarrhea, dysentery, cholera, leprosy, plague, typhoid fever (Czajka et al.,
2003). Cockroaches have been shown to be linked with allergic reactions in
humans and leave chemical traces in their fecal matter as well as emitting
airborne pheromones for swarming and mating and these chemical trails transmit
bacteria on surfaces (Prado et al., 2002). P. americana (American Cockroach) is
the well-known pest species ubiquitous throughout the world and is an important
reason for the need to eliminate this vermin is that sensitization to cockroaches is
associated with asthma (Rabito, 2011). There are numerous parasites and
predators of cockroaches, but few of them have proven to be highly effective for
biological control of pest species (Kaakeh et al., 1996, 1997). Cockroaches are
primarily controlled through the use of synthetic organic insecticides (Organo
phosphates, pyrethroids, carbamates) but many factors including insecticide
resistance, concerns about human and environmental safety and increased
developmental cost of new insecticides have intensified the search for new
control methods. Pathogenicity of Beauveria bassiana against P. americana was
studied and the need for potential alternative for the use of biologically based
insecticides, such as those containing entomopathogenic fungi was expressed by
Murali Mohan et al. (1999). German cockroaches have developed resistance to a
wide range of insecticides including organochlorine, organophosphate and
pyrethroid insecticides (Scott et al., 1990). The situation warrants development of
alternate methods of management of this house hold pest and to minimize the use
of chemical pesticides in an attempt to safe guard human health and environment.
![Page 6: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Review of literature
16
There are few reports which address the ability of M. anisopliae to infect
cockroaches but no information on mechanism of insect kill was reported.
Defense reaction in the form of nodule formation was reported in P. americana
up on injection of M. anisopliae conidia (Gunnarsson and Lackie, 1985). A
commercial formulation of M. anisopliae has been developed for cockroach
control in US by the Eco science Corporation (Kaakeh et al., 1996). Most of the
work was done keeping the focus on mortality of the target pest caused by the
fungus in view of the urgent need for more active and virulent fungal strains and
identifying target specific isolates of the pathogen causing pest mortality at a
higher rate.
Horizontal transmission of pathogens within the same target species
called as autodissemination, and it has been shown to be useful for the biocontrol
of insect pest from several different insect orders. Mortality due to initial fungal
application maybe followed by horizontal transmission within the target
population a phenomenon that may be attributable to the gregarious behavior of
cockroaches (Kaakeh et al., 1996). Hernandez et al. (2008) reported that
Cockroach (P. americana) adults were more susceptible to infection by M.
anisopliae under high relative humidity compared with laboratory conditions.
Tove Steenberg and Karl Martin (1999) reported field collected German
cockroaches infected with pathogenic fungi. Horizontal transmission of fungal
infection among healthy and infected cockroaches was studied in German
cockroach Blattella germanica by Kaakeh et al. (1996) and was reported as a
successful mode of autodissemination among German cockroaches (Quesada-
Moraga et al., 2004). Successful mortality due to horizontal transmission of M.
anisopliae infection among termites in a colony was reported by Andrew (2000).
![Page 7: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Review of literature
17
Autodissemination of fungal conidia of some entomophthoralean species while
the host insect is still alive was reported in flies infected with Strongwellsea
castrans and thrips infected with Entomophthora thripidum (Pell et al., 2001).
Infection by M. anisopliae causing sub-lethal reproductive effects on the female
German cockroaches and its potential to decrease the pest status (Quesada-
Moraga et al., 2004) in which treated females showed an effect on oothecal
production, oothecal hatch and nymphal production. This would bring a downfall
in the populations of the insect in the locality. Horizonital transmission of M.
anisopliae among the ectoparasitic mites of the genus Psoroptes was reported
when the uninfected live mites were brought in contact with infected cadaver
(Brooks and Wall, 2005). The capacity of M. anisopliae to get horizontally
transmitted among the adults of Ceratitis capitata was evaluated in the laboratory
tests (Quesada-Moraga et al., 2008). Efficient treatments were reported to be
important for horizontal transmission of the pathogen from diseased to healthy
insects, causing epizootics in field populations and a longer-term control effect.
Behavioral characteristics of cockroaches, such as aggregation (Kaakeh et al.,
1996) and hiding preference for spots with high humidity, may favor the
horizontal transmission of the fungus (Lopes and Alves, 2010).
III. Insecticidal activity of destruxin
Metarhizium anisopliae was reported to produce some cyclic peptide
toxins, destruxins, which exhibit a variety of insecticidal actions by Sharif et al.
(2010) and thirty-eight destruxin analogues have been reported to date (Schrank
and Vainstein, 2010). M. anisopliae infects insects by penetrating the cuticle and
produce destruxin, and represents a pathogen for many insect species (Sewify
and Hashem 2001; Ihara et al., 2003). The insecticidal properties of destruxins,
![Page 8: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Review of literature
18
cyclic depsipeptide toxins from Metarhizium spp., was described by Kodaira
(1961) and shown to be produced in wax moth and silkworm larvae by Roberts
(1966) and Suzuki et al. (1971). Destruxins constitute a large class of peptide
related compounds comprising a hydroxyl acid and five amino acids joined by
amide and ester linkages (Suzuki et al., 1970). Some strains of M. anisopliae
produce the cyclodepsipeptidic toxin, dtx in combination with other cyclic
depsipeptides and hydrophobins (Gillespe and Claydo, 1989). The toxic
secondary metabolites that are extracellularly secreted play an important role in
pathogenesis (Kershaw et al., 1999). All the naturally occurring dtxs and its
analogues are active against wide range of insect pests (Pedras et al., 2002). For
entomopathogens producing these toxins, infection has been shown to result in
more rapid host death (McCauley et al., 1968) compared to strains that do not
produce these metabolites (Samuels et al., 1988; Kershaw et al., 1999). Inter- and
intra-specific variation in destruxin production was detected in Metarhizium and
may be important in determining virulence and/or specificity against insects.
Some weakly to moderately pathogenic strains were highly pathogenic when
injected into Galleria mellonella larvae, demonstrating the importance of the
cuticle as a barrier to fungal infection (Amiri-Besheli et al., 1999). The pure
forms of dtxs are more active than crude dtx as reported in Agrostis segetum
(Thomsen and Eilenberg, 2000). On the other hand, Skrobek and Butt (2005) in
their studies on the effect of crude extract of dtx from M. anisopliae individually
on human and insect cell lines expressed the opinion that testing of crude
destruxin offers an alternative approach and is recommended when assessing the
risks of metabolites for registration purposes. Some strains of M. anisopliae,
however, grow profusely in their hosts without inducing symptoms of toxicosis,
![Page 9: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Review of literature
19
and death of the insect occurs slowly (Samuels et al., 1988). These observations
suggest intra-specific variation in toxin production. Destruxins A and E are more
toxic than the others (Dumas et al., 1994), so the relative amounts of these
destruxins could influence the speed of kill (i.e. virulence), and possibly
specificity. These reports turned the focus towards the cyclo depsipeptidic
mycotoxin, destruxin produced by this fungus and revealed its bright perspective
for insect pest control. Destruxins are produced by various fungi, and a direct
relationship has been established between destruxin production and the virulence
of the entomopathogen Metarhizium anisopliae.
Different application strategies are adopted for testing the effect of dtx
on various insect species. The most widely used one is injection or forced feeding
as demonstrated in Manduca sexta (Samuels et al., 1988; Vey and Quiot, 1989;
Dumas et al., 1994). Insecticidal activity up on topical application is dependent
on the target insect species. Fargues et al. (1986) noticed that dtx has no
unsecticidal properties on the larvae of Galleria mellonella when applied
topically while others reported contact toxicity in pests like Empoasca vitis,
Phaedon cochleariae (Poprawski et al., 1994; Amiri et al., 1999).
Insecticidal activity of dtxs was examined in insects belonging to all
orders of insect (Pedras et al., 2002). Toxins were administered by topical
application, forced ingestion, immersion or injection to larvae or adult insects.
Dtxs cause initial titanic paralysis, which at lethal doses leads to death of the
insect (Samuels et al., 1988).
Studies for establishing the role of dtx in the pathogenicity of M.
anisopliae suggested a correlation between in vitro production of dtx and fungal
virulence (Fargues et al., 1986; Kershaw et al., 1999) with dtxs acting as
![Page 10: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Review of literature
20
virulence factors by facilitating penetration of pathogen into the host (Samuels et
al., 1988). According to the studies of Wang et al. (2003) the mutant strain
devoid of the dtx production ability has been observed to possess the ability to
kill G. mellonella as fast as the wild type strain. It has been reported that non-
toxin producing strains of M. anisopliae still exhibited high pathogenecity
against different insect hosts (Kershaw et al., 1999; Amiri et al., 2000). In this
regard, two virulence strategies are proposed i.e. the ‘toxin strategy’ and ‘growth
strategy’ (Valadares-Inglis and Peberdy, 1998). This indicated that the toxin
producing strain showed limited growth in the insect haemolymph but produced
dtx in sufficient quantities to cause host death. On the other hand, non-toxin
producing strain implemented copious growth in the haemolymph to cause
disruption of homoestasis and starvation leading to host death (Valadares-Inglis
and Peberdy, 1998). Larvae of Phaedon cochleariae were found to be more
susceptible to infection by M. anisopliae if it was used in conjunction with a
crude dtx mixture (Amiri et al., 2000). Therefore, exploring the interaction
between the lower doses of dtx and the fungus, M. anisopliae becomes important
for improving mycoinsecticides and decreasing the risks of the same in the
environment. Fungi producing secondary metabolites, derivatives from various
intermediates in primary metabolism, some of which have insecticidal activities
were also reported (Vey et al., 2001). Huxam et al., (1989) reported the inhibition
of haemocytic activation of freely circulating cells associated with immune
response in Periplaneta americana by destruxin when the later was injected in to
the haemocoel.
![Page 11: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Review of literature
21
IV. Compatibility of entomopathogenic fungi with pesticides, fungicides
and botanicals
Combined utilization of selective insecticides in association with fungal
pathogens can increase the efficiency of control by reduction of the amount of
applied insecticides, minimizing environmental contamination hazards and pest
resistance (Moino and Alves, 1998; Quintela and McCoy 1998). Conidial
survival may be affected either by environmental factors (Furlong and Pell, 1997)
or by bio-pesticides and/or chemical products used to protect crop plants
(Anderson and Roberts 1983; Loria et al., 1983; Alves and Lecuona, 1998).
Many experiments have been carried out aiming to detect side effects of
pesticides on entomopathogenic fungi (Olmert and Kenneth, 1974; Gardner and
Storey, 1985; Neves et al., 2001). The use of incompatible pesticides with
enthomopatogenic fungal propagules and products may inhibit the development
and reproduction of biocontrol agents, and this negatively affect the efficacy of
IPM programme (Duarte et al., 1992; Malo, 1993). Most of the studies on
compatibility evaluated the effect only on vegetative growth and sporulation,
disregarding conidial germination in compatibility studies. Germination is also an
important criterion to evaluate compatibility of pesticides with entomopathogenic
fungi in vitro (Anderson and Roberts, 1983). Neves et al. (2001) pointed out the
importance of condial germination in compatibility studies and emphasized that
the inhibition of this initial step affect the plain development of the fungus in the
field because this fungal structure is responsible for initiating the disease on
insect pests. Success of a pest control programme using entomopathogenic fungi,
however, depends on conidial survival in the field environment. Todorova et al.
(1998) reinforced the importance of pesticides influencing conidial germination,
![Page 12: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Review of literature
22
since they are responsible for the occurrence of first disease foci in the field.
Duarte et al. (1992) pointed out the importance in considering the antagonistic
effect of the pesticides on all developmental phases of entomopathogenic fungi
since these products may affect the bio-insecticide potential as well as the
occurrence of epizootics. Several studies have contributed information for the
choice of pesticides with more selective action on the entomopathogens, and
most of them were conducted under laboratory conditions (Castinerias et al.
1991; Silva et al., 1993). One of the options for improving the efficacy of the
entomopathogenic fungi is combined application with sublethal doses of
insecticides (Hiromori and Nishigaki, 1998). The knowledge of the compatibility
between the entomopathogenic fungi and pesticides may facilitate the choice of
these products in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programs. Lecanicillium
muscarium, an insect pathogen that is used commercially to control greenhouse
pests and is a candidate species for the control of B. tabaci, was suggested to be
applied sequentially with imidacloprid, IPM Strategy (Cuthbertson et al., 2005).
The German cockroach, Blattella germanica (L.), is an important
structural pest controlled primarily with synthetic organic insecticides
(organophosphates, pyrethroids, and carbamates) (Rust et al., 1993; Benson and
Zungoli, 1997). Compatibility between M. anisopliae and insecticides can lead to
a reduced use of insecticides (Quintela and McCoy1997) for cockroach control
there by reducing human exposure (Sanyang and Van-Emden, 1996) in the urban
structures. The potential impact in the use of M. anisopliae and insecticides
combination has been evaluated only once in a German cockroach control
program (Kaakeh et al., 1997). Widespread resistance to these insecticides in
populations of this cockroach (Rust et al., 1993; Valles and Yu, 1996; Holbrook
![Page 13: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Review of literature
23
et al., 1999), and concern about human safety and the environment have
motivated investigations of alternative methods of cockroach control. Pesticides
can also act in a positive manner in combination with entomopathogens where, at
sublethal doses they interact with the latter causing or activating infectious
diseases by stress, or turning the insects more susceptible to the action of
microbial toxins (Batista Filho et al., 2001). To harness the benefits of
entomopathogenic fungus their compatibility with insecticides becomes decisive
for combined use, while the potential inhibitory effects of insecticides on the
entomopathogenic fungus cannot be ignored (Amutha et al., 2010).
a. Pesticides
There are numerous examples where the application of chemical
pesticides has enhanced the efficacy of entomopathogens against insect pests
(Kruger and McCoy (1997); Kaakeh et al. (1997); Gardner and Kinard (1998).
James and Elzen (2001) and Alizadeh et al. (2007) reported that imidacloprid had
no negative effect on B. bassiana. The increased virulence in the combination of
entomopathogenic fungus M. anisopliae with imidacloprid against the dengue
vector Aedes aegypti (Paula et al., 2011). Nasirian et al., (2006) reported that the
fipronil and imidacloprid gel baits completely killed the German cockroaches
under laboratory conditions in ingested bait method. It was also found to exert
synergistic effect on insects at sublethal or lethal dose either as spray mixture or
as bait with conidia of the fungus and a number of laboratory studies have
reported efficacy of fipronil and imidacloprid gel baits in control of cockroach
infestation but only a few field studies have been done so far according to
Gardner and Kinard (1998).
![Page 14: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Review of literature
24
Monocrotophos was reported to be compatible to B. bassiana (Umadevi
et al., 2003). Mochi et al. (2005) reported that the toxic action of pesticides on
the fungus in soil is small, suggesting that this bioagent can be used in
combination with pesticides without compromising its activity. The fungal
(Fusarium semitectum) formulation sprayed in combination with pesticide,
monocrotophos was reported to be safe against broad mite,
Polyphagotarsonemus latus (Mikunthan and Manjunatha, 2009). Enhanced lethal
effect of M. anisopliae on Periplaneta americana was observed when applied in
combination with chlorpyrifos (Wakil et al., 2012). Amutha et al. (2010)
suggested Quinalphos and chlorpyrifos to be used in combination with B.
bassiana which were proved to be less toxic to the fungal pathogen. Shafa Khan
et al. (2012) concluded that B. bassiana and M. anisopliae were most sensitive to
chlorpyrifos but, imidachloprid, monocrotophos, quinalphos were recommended
to be highly safe and most compatible to the same fungi.
Chlorpyrifos had been reported to strongly inhibit the growth and
sporulation of B. bassiana in a dose-dependent manner even at concentrations
lower than recommended rates of field use (Rao, 1989). Earlier reports by
Ambethgar (2003) indicate that chlorpyrifos and monocrotophos were slightly
harmful to B. bassiana at normal field dose. Oliveira et al. (2003) reported 100%
inhibition of the germination of B. bassiana using chlorpyrifos. Masarat (2009)
reported that strong inhibition of the growth of B. bassiana by chlorpyrifos and
endosulfan.
Investigations by Muhammed Ramzan Asi et al. (2010) revealed that
chlorpyriphos was most detrimental to M. anisopliae. Strategies have been
employed to increase efficiency and to accelerate insect mortality by combining
![Page 15: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Review of literature
25
entomopathogenic fungi with sub lethal doses of chemical insecticides and
botanicals. Chlorpyrifos was also reported to be toxic to adults of German
cockroach by Abd-Elghafar et al. (1992). Pachamuthu et al. (2000) found a
significant interaction between the entomopathogenic fungi and commercial
pesticide where significant differences in the LT50 values was observed when M.
anisopliae was used singly than in combination with chlorpyrifos comparatively .
The susceptibility level and insecticide resistance mechanisms of German
cockroach to organochlorated, organophosphate, carbamate and pyrethroid
insecticide groups have been studied by Nasirian (2010). The insecticide
resistance status in three hospital-collected strains of the German cockroach
using four commonly used insecticides from different classes by Limoee et al.
(2011) revealed the resistance of German cockroach to chlorpyrifos.
Based on fungal respiratory activity, the toxic action of a range of
pesticides (acaricides, fungicides, insecticides and herbicides) on M. anisopliae
in the soil is small, suggesting little negative impact on the fungal activity
resulting from their use (Mochi et al., 2005). Fungal biological control agents and
selective insecticide may act synergistically increasing the efficiency of the
control, allowing the lower doses of insecticides, preservation of natural enemies,
minimizing environmental pollution and decreasing the likelihood of
development of resistance to either agent (Boman, 1980; Moino and Alves, 1998;
Ambethgar, 2009). Efforts have been made to enhance the biological activity of
M. anisopliae by integrating it with sub lethal doses of chemical insecticides
(Zurek et al., 2002).
![Page 16: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Review of literature
26
b. Fungicides
An important factor to be considered in favour of entomopathogenic
fungi is that to date there have been no reports of development of resistance
(Santos et al., 2007). Klingen and Haukeland (2006) provide a comprehensive
review of the effects of agrochemicals on entomopathogenic fungi and concluded
that insecticides and herbicides were not generally harmful to fungal growth,
while fungicides were sometimes harmful. Studies on mite control in viticulture
have found copper-based fungicides to be more IPM-compatible than alternatives
such as carbamates in sparing predatory phytoseiid mites (Morando et al., 1996;
Rumbos et al., 2000). Ropek and Para (2002) showed that copper fungicides
inhibit the growth and infectivity of Verticillium lecanii, that can be important for
aphid control in citrus. Mani et al. (1995) found that exposure to copper
oxychloride reduced the longevity and fecundity of the citrus mealybug
parasitoid Leptomastix dactylopii (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). A glasshouse pot
trial by McLean et al. (2001) confirmed that Trichoderma harzianum, an
effective biocontrol agent of the onion white rot pathogen Sclerotium cepivorum,
was sensitive to mancozeb. Rebollar et al. (1996) reported that benomyl and
mancozeb showed a high degree of growth inhibition of Verticillium lecanii
fungus. Durán et al. (2004) mention that benomyl, dimethomorph-mancozeb,
chlorothalonil, propineb, mancozeb, and mancozeb-cymoxanil mixture
fungicides significantly affect germination and growth of B. bassiana while
fosetyl-Al, propamocarb, and copper oxychloride do not. It is interesting that one
fungicide (fosetyl-aluminium) appeared to stimulate mycelial growth of
Lecanicillium longisporum. Synergism has been identified between
entomopathogenic fungus and insecticides (Kaakeh et al., 1997; Shah et al.,
![Page 17: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Review of literature
27
2007); therefore, it is possible that such trends may be present between some
fungicides and fungal biocontrol agents (BCAs). For example, Kouassi et al.
(2003) reported that application of B. bassiana followed by fungicide application
(metalaxyl, mancozeb and copper oxide) could synergize insecticidal activity.
Fungicides most effectively influenced the respiratory activity of M. anisopliae,
with copper oxychloride and mancozeb being the active ingredients that most
affected CO2 production by the fungus (Mochi et al., 2005). The background
information about the different degrees of entomopathogenic fungi showing
fungicide tolerance was also reported (Maribel et al., 2010). Mancozeb and
copper oxychloride were reported to be incompatible to B. bassiana and M.
anisopliae and caused complete inhibition of vegetative growth and spore
germination (Shafa Khan et al., 2012).
c. Botanicals
In recent years there has been an attempt to replace the synthetic
insecticides with less expensive, locally available, ecologically safe and socio-
friendly options including botanicals (Ban-wo and Adamu, 2003; Ogendo et al.,
2006; Talukder, 2006; Is-man, 2007). Jayaraj (1988) hinted the possibility of
combining botanicals with microbial for enhanced efficacy against insect pests.
The commercial plant based pesticides were well tolerated by B. bassiana where
neemgold and biospark were relatively very safe followed by exodos (Sahayaraj
et al., 2011). Vyas et al. (1992) reported that, neemark, a biopesticide of neem
was well tolerated by M. anisopliae. Neem oil, a biofertilizer was reported to be
detrimental to the germination of the Beauveria bassiana conidia and moderately
toxic to M. anisoplaie the combination of neem oil and B. bassiana conidia was
suggested not to be used in IPM programs by Hirose et al. (2001). Islam et al.
![Page 18: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Review of literature
28
(2010) reported combined application of an entomopathogenic fungus and a
botanical insecticide may benefit from both, and it has proven effective for the
control of B. tabaci on eggplant. Neem is one of the general-purpose botanical
pesticides used in organic agriculture. It is widely used around the world today
either as a stand-alone treatment (Nadia et al., 1996; Kumar et al., 2005; Kumar
and Poehling, 2006) or in conjunction with synthetic pesticides or
entomopathogens (Depieri et al., 2005; Filotas et al., 2005; Mohan et al., 2007).
Azadirachtin enhances the vegetative growth and spore germination of B.
bassiana and M. anisopliae (Shafa Khan et al., 2012). The synergism between
the botanical insecticide, azadicarchtin and destruxin, a mycotoxin that was
extracted from M. anisopliae in a joint action against cotton aphid, Aphis gossypii
was reported by Fei Yi et al. (2012).
d. Pesticides used against Cockroaches
The German cockroach, B. germanica (L.), is controlled primarily with synthetic
organic insecticides (organophosphates, pyrethroids, and carbamates) (Schal and
Hamilton, 1990; Rust et al., 1993; Benson and Zungoli, 1997). Among the
pyrethroid compounds, deltamethrin and cypermethrin are often used in the form
of miraculous Chinese chalk stick, (locally named as Lakshman rekha), powder
and liquid to ward off the kitchen insects (Das and Sudip, 2006). Boric acid
(H3BO3) has been used as an insecticide for many years, especially against
cockroaches (Mallis, 1969). Recently, its use has been limited because it is a
slow-acting poison (Cornwell, 1976). Several weeks may be required to produce
a significant population reduction in the German cockroach, Blattella germanica
(L.) and a major resistance problem against many of the latter insecticides,
thereby greatly diminishing their usefulness and historical data have shown that
![Page 19: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Review of literature
29
B. germanica has the capability to develop resistance to most insecticides in
wide-scale use (Cochran, 1989, 1995a). As a result, interest has again centered on
lesser-used compounds, including boric acid (Cochran, 1995b). It was reported
that boric acid when used along with B. bassiana increased the mortality rates in
American cockroach compared to when boric acid alone was used (Hernandez et
al., 2008). Boric acid is especially effective when used as part of an ongoing
integrated pest management (IPM) program according to Quarles (2001).
Widespread resistance to the insecticides used for the control the populations of
American cockroach (Scott et al., 1990; Rust et al., 1993; Holbrook et al., 1999;
Valles and Yu, 1996), and concern about human safety and the environment have
motivated investigations of alternative methods of cockroach control.
V. Insect host – pathogen interaction and mechanism of insect kill
The interaction between the entomopathogenic fungus M. anisopliae
and the host insect is a multifactorial process that culminates with the death of
the insect and include adhesion of conidia to the surface of the insect,
germination, penetration, invasive growth, and conidiation which are the
different stages of the pathogenic process and vary considerably in their mode of
action and virulence (Hernandez et al., 2010; Shahid et al., 2012). Death of the
infected host usually occurs during colonization of the hemocoel, where in the
host suffers depletion of nutrients, or starvation, as was shown in Culex pipiens
quinquefasciatus larvae infected with the oomycete Lagenidium giganteum
(Domnas et al., 1974). Inside the insect hemocoel the fungus switches from
filamentous hyphal growth to yeast-like hyphal bodies or protoplasts that
circulate in the hemolymph and proliferate via budding (Boucias and Pendland,
1982). The fungus later erupts through the cuticle and an external mycelium
![Page 20: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Review of literature
30
covers all or parts of the host and formation of infective spores ensues under
appropriate environmental conditions (McCauley et al., 1968; Boucias and
Pendland, 1982). Both Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae have
been shown to produce metabolites within insect hosts with effects ranging from
paralysis to immunosuppression (Hajek and St. Leger, 1994; Hung and Boucias,
1992; Kershaw et al., 1999). Kershaw et al. (1999) hypothesized that differences
in isolate virulence can be attributed to the position of the phenotype of a
particular isolate occupies on a continuum between two main strategies; an
isolate may produce a large amount of toxins or may focus their energy into
vegetative growth. In addition to the toxic effects of metabolites, fungi could kill
insects via vegetative growth, with death occurring when fungal hyphae penetrate
vital organs, block the flow of hemolymph, or sap the nutritive resources from
the host (Clarkson and Charnley, 1996). Aspergillus flavus when injected in to
haemocoel of the German cockroach invaded various internal organs which was
observed in tissue sections that include alimentary canal, fatbody etc. (Pathak
and Kulshrestha, 1998).
The insect host is not a passive player in the infection process and neither is
death imminent once infection has been initiated where insects employ both
cellular and humoral defenses to combat microbial infection in which the
infected fungus encounters activated host defense mechanisms from the time it
attaches and attempts to penetrate the cuticle and even after successful
penetration it encounters hemocytes of host hemocoel engaged in encapsulation,
nodule formation, and phagocytic activities (Vey and Gotz, 1986; Gillespie et al.,
1997). Activation of the host’s innate defense system follows upon its detection
of the invading fungus via changes in the properties of the cuticle basement
![Page 21: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Review of literature
31
membrane (Gunnarson, 1988) and substances associated with the fungal cell wall
(Unestam and Soderhall, 1977; Butt et al., 1996;). In most cases entomogenous
fungi are able to overcome host defenses by continuing to grow even after having
been phagocytized and by suppressing the spreading ability of granulocytes,
which prevents nodule formation (Hung et al., 1993). Efficient use of nutrients in
the haemolymph while combating the insect’s blood-borne defences will be
critical to successful parasitism (Xia et al., 2000). Quesada-Moraga et al. (2006)
reported that some proteins extracted from two M. anisopliae and B. bassiana
isolates gave significant mortalities against Spodoptera litura. These researches
revealed a bright perspective for pest control. However, the expensive costs and
latent danger to humans limited the toxins to use extensively and thereby,
exploring the interaction between mycotoxins and entomopathogenic fungi
become important for improving mycoinsecticides and decreasing the risks of
mycotoxins.
Dubovskii et al. (2008) reported a significant increase of the generation of
reactive oxygen species (ROS) and activities of enzymatic antioxidants in lymph
of the honeycomb moth Galleria mellonella L. at development of the process of
encapsulation of nylon implants. This has been established at a very early stage
when a nylon implant was pierced in to the cuticle and a capsule is formed on its
surface. Decrease of the enzymatic antioxidant activities in the insect hemocytes
were revealed after the implant incorporation. Oxidative stress during the viral
pathogenesis of insect cell lines was described previously by Wang et al. (2001).
Changes of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and glutathione-S-transferase (GST)
activities as well as of the content of SH-containing compounds were studied in
hemolymph of the Vairimorpha ephestiae microsporidian-infected greater wax
![Page 22: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Review of literature
32
moth Galleria mellonella larvae by Lozinskaya et al., (2004) and it has been
reported that activity of the antioxidant system and generation of free radicals in
hemolymph of G. mellonella larvae change depending on the stage of
microsporidian development in the insect organism. The key role of ROS in
encapsulation and elimination of Plasmodium in the mosquito Anopheles was
reported by Mendoza et al. 2002 and Kumar et al. 2003. Reduced glutathione
(GSH) constitutes a second line in insect immunity as it plays a role in the
detoxification of toxins in insect body from concomitant oxidative stress (Nappi
and Vass, 2001; Kumar et al., 2003). The studies were carried out which indicate
participation of hemocytes in the ROS production in insects (Whitten and
Ratcliffe, 1999; Glupov et al., 2001; Nappi and Christensen, 2005) and it was
suggested that the ROS formed during encapsulation can participate in
elimination of parasite at the expense of the high reactional capability (Carton et
al., 2008). Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are used by insect as cytotoxic
materials against invading pathogens and parasites (Fang, 1999; Peterson and
Lukhart, 2006). Lyakhovich et al. (2006) viewed that various antioxidants that
were present in the insect may decrease the level of lipid peroxidation. The key
role in maintenance of the oxidation–reduction balance in hemolymph at
development of the encapsulation process is played by non-oxidative
antioxidants (Dubovskii et al., 2008). Dubovskiy et al. (2008) reported the
increased activities of SOD, GST, malondialdehyde and RSSR/RSH ratio and
decrease in catalase activity on the first and following days after bacterial
infection by Bacillus thuringiensis indicating the increased levels of oxidative
stress in the midgut of Galleria mellonella larvae. Elevated levels of lipid
peroxidation and protein oxidation was observed in Aedes caspius mosquitoes
![Page 23: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Review of literature
33
when infected with Bacillus thuringiensis indicate the induction of oxidative
stress (Ahmed, 2012).
Oxidative stress arises as the result of ischemia- or anoxia-reperfusion in
various animal systems (Fuller et al., 1988; Halliwell and Gutteridge, 1989;
Ruuge et al., 1991). It is generally accepted that damage occurs early during the
oxygen reperfusion phase, due to the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS)
from various sources, and that antioxidant systems are key to the removal of
these reactive species to prevent subsequent damage from their activity.
Surprisingly, little attention has been given to insects in this regard. Many studies
addressed oxidative stress and antioxidant defenses in response to plant pro-
oxidants or insecticides (Ahmad, 1992; Aucoin et al., 1995), where antioxidants
were essential for their detoxification, or the prevention of damage from their
activity. Insects are prone to the normal burden of oxidative stress associated
with an aerobic life style. The value of an antioxidant enzyme system depends
upon its location relative to where the oxygen radicals are generated (Natraj and
Dalibor, 2006). A variety of animals, including a large number of insect species,
undergo stresses comparable to ischemia-reperfusion as a natural part of their life
cycles. Detoxification mechanism must involve a right balance between the
formation and detoxification of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Insects have
evolved a complex antioxidant mechanism to overcome the toxic effects of ROS.
The antioxidant defense is primarily constituted by the enzymatic actions of
glutathione peroxidase (GPX), catalase (CAT), superoxide dismutase (SOD), and
ascorbate peroxidase. The cellular antioxidant status determines the susceptibility
to oxidative damage and is usually altered in response to oxidative stress
(Halliwell and Gutteridge, 1999). Alterations in the antioxidant enzyme activities
![Page 24: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Review of literature
34
and increased oxidative damage have been observed in various insects that were
infected with various pathogens. The detection, characterization and analysis of
the role of ROS were well established in both normal and pathological processes
of cellular metabolism. All cellular components are susceptible to attack by ROS,
but the major multifold effects include membrane peroxidation, loss of ions,
protein cleavage, DNA inactivation, damage and strand breakage (Wolff et al.,
1986). One method by which ROS can cause cell death is by initiating and
propagating lipid peroxidation, which results in the loss of cell membrane
structure leading to increased permeability to ions and fluids (Jamieson, 1989).
To minimize the potential threats of ROS, the cells are equipped with numerous
antioxidant defense systems. Their function is to maintain low steady state levels
of ROS and other radicals in the cell, a process involving precise regulation of
their location and amount. The antioxidant enzymes, such as superoxide
dismutase (SOD, E.C. 1.15.1.1), catalase (CAT, E.C. 1.11.1.6) and peroxidase
(POX, E.C. 1.11.1.7) form a part of the defence system (Joanisse and Storey,
1996 a,b). Insects appear to rely on ascorbate POX (APOX, E.C. 1.11.1.11)
activity, which catalyses the oxidation of ascorbic acid with the concurrent
reduction of hydrogen peroxide (Mathews et al., 1997). SOD dismutates
superoxide anions directly (McCord and Fridovich 1969), but in this process,
potentially toxic hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is generated.
Catalases and peroxidases are the most important enzymes that degrade
peroxide into water and oxygen. These enzymes and superoxide dismutase are
the first lines of cell defence against ROS. Antioxidant defence was measured by
activities of SOD, CAT and APOX. CAT and POX, more appropriately the
specific APOX, act to remove these peroxides. The key step in oxidative stress is
![Page 25: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Review of literature
35
the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) which initiate a variety of auto-
oxidative chain reactions on membrane unsaturated fatty acids and proteins,
producing lipid peroxides and protein carbonyls respectively resulting in a
cascade of reactions ultimately leading to destruction of organelles and
macromolecules (Jamieson, 1989). Hydroxyl radical (OH.), hydrogen peroxide
(H2O2) and superoxide radical (O2.-), the ubiquitous products of single electron
reductions of dioxygen, are amongst the most reactive compounds known to be
produced during oxidative stress (Dietz et al., 1999). The detection,
characterization and analysis of the role of reactive oxygen species (ROS) was
well established in both normal and pathological processes of cellular
metabolism. ROS were considered as probable cytotoxic agents responsible for
destruction of pathogenic organisms in insect haemolymph (Komarov et al.,
2009). The toxic effect of a cyclodepsipeptide, destruxin secreted by M.
anisopliae and its mode of action on the lepidopteran pest Spodoptera litura was
shown to be countered by the antioxidant enzymes to an extent governed by the
concentration and time of treatment (Sowjanya and Padmaja, 2008a, 2008b).
Oxidative stress is caused by free radicals such as reactive oxygen
species (ROS), which includes superoxide (O2.-), peroxyl, alkoxyl, hydroxyl and
nitric oxide. ROS are characterized by presence of an unpaired electron in their
outer orbit. In addition to these ROS radicals in living organisms, there are other
ROS non-radicals such as the singlet oxygen (1O2), hydrogen peroxide and
hypochlorous acid (Pietta, 2000). Small quantities of ROS are formed
spontaneously under normal conditions as byproducts of redox processes such as
oxidative phosphorylation in the mitochondria and β- oxidation of fatty acids.
However, the production of ROS is increased when the organism is subjected to
![Page 26: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Review of literature
36
irradiation, chemicals or infection (Knopowski et al., 2002). Overproduction of
ROS damages cellular lipids, nucleic acids, proteins and leads to lipid
peroxidation, genome instability or gene mutation; protein carbonyl formation
and enzymatic inactivity resulting in degenerative processes leading to aging
(Martin et al., 1996; Berlett and Standtman, 1997; Finkel and Halbroook, 2000).
To defend against the ROS formed, animal cells use three enzymes, superoxide
dismutase, catalase and glutathione peroxidase. Superoxide dismutase converts
superoxide anion to oxygen and hydrogen peroxide. Catalase reduces hydrogen
peroxide to water and oxygen (Fridovich, 1978). Glutathione peroxidase
neutralizes hydrogen peroxide by taking hydrogens from two glutathione
molecules resulting in two H2O and one molecule of an oxidized form of
glutathione (Gaikwad et al., 2010). Lipid peroxidation is one of the major
outcomes of free radical-mediated injury to tissue. Studies have revealed the
susceptibility of the cellular components from the attack of ROS, but the major
multifold effects are manifested in the form of loss of ions and protein cleavage.
The generation of ROS like OH– and O2– radicals disintegrates biomembranes by
lipid peroxidation which is a general mechanism of stress induced responses in
living systems (Panda et al., 2003). Ultrastructural effects of crude destruxin on
the salivary gland were reported by Sowjanya et al. (2008), where characteristic
changes including detachment of microvilli, epithelial cell vacuolization was
observed through transmission electron microscopy of Spodoptera litura. ROS
include oxygen ions, free radicals and peroxides, both inorganic and organic and
are generally very small and highly reactive, because of the presence of unpaired
electrons (Aslanturk et al., 2011). Studies reported that organophosphate
pesticides caused lipid peroxidation and the alterations in the antioxidant defense
![Page 27: I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agentsshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/27295/7/07...Review of literature 11 I. Entomopathogenic fungi as biocontrol agents In the](https://reader031.vdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021818/5aa7bce77f8b9aee748c765e/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Review of literature
37
enzymes of insect (Gupta et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2011). Many researchers who
are interested in studying changes in the redox status rely on GSH levels as a
reliable indicator of an organism’s redox status (Eun Kyung Go et al., 2007).
Numerous antioxidants are known to forestall oxidative damage or to limit its
propagation. GSH, is a most abundant and an important intracellular thiol redox
regulator that plays a major role in both the maintenance of redox status and in
the protection of cells from electrophilic and oxidative attacks (Dickinson et al.,
2002). These antioxidants can act to detoxify the ROS upto a certain level
beyond which the ROS induced damage leads to larval mortality.