Next Article in Journal
Fungal Biodiversity in the Alpine Tarfala Valley
Next Article in Special Issue
Alicyclobacillus spp.: New Insights on Ecology and Preserving Food Quality through New Approaches
Previous Article in Journal
Membrane Association and Catabolite Repression of the Sulfolobus solfataricus α-Amylase
Previous Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Potential Effects of NaCl and Sorbic Acid on Staphylococcal Enterotoxin A Formation
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Bioprotective Role of Yeasts

by
Serena Muccilli
1 and
Cristina Restuccia
2,*
1
Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e L’analisi dell’Economia Agraria-Centro di Ricerca per l’Agrumicoltura e le Colture Mediterranee, Corso Savoia 190, 95024 Acireale, CT, Italy
2
Di3A-Dipatimento di Agricoltura, Alimentazione e Ambiente, University of Catania, via Santa Sofia 98, 95123 Catania, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 30 July 2015 / Accepted: 29 September 2015 / Published: 10 October 2015
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Microbial Activity in Food)

Abstract

:
The yeasts constitute a large group of microorganisms characterized by the ability to grow and survive in different and stressful conditions and then to colonize a wide range of environmental and human ecosystems. The competitive traits against other microorganisms have attracted increasing attention from scientists, who proposed their successful application as bioprotective agents in the agricultural, food and medical sectors. These antagonistic activities rely on the competition for nutrients, production and tolerance of high concentrations of ethanol, as well as the synthesis of a large class of antimicrobial compounds, known as killer toxins, which showed clearly a large spectrum of activity against food spoilage microorganisms, but also against plant, animal and human pathogens. This review describes the antimicrobial mechanisms involved in the antagonistic activity, their applications in the processed and unprocessed food sectors, as well as the future perspectives in the development of new bio-drugs, which may overcome the limitations connected to conventional antimicrobial and drug resistance.

1. Introduction: Yeast Potential in Assuring Food Safety

Chemical food preservatives are commonly used to extend the shelf life and to improve the safety of food by inhibiting the growth of spoilage and pathogenic bacteria. However, increasing consumer fears about their potential toxicity and antimicrobial-resistant pathogens present in food, which constitute a direct risk to public health, have prompted research into alternative and safer methods of food preservation, of which biopreservation has been perceived as a potential substitute [1,2].
Biopreservation or biocontrol refers to the use of natural or controlled microorganisms, or their antimicrobial products, to extend the shelf life and to enhance the safety of food [3], and it can be achieved by either (1) the addition of antimicrobial metabolites without the producing strain, (2) the addition of a culture producing antimicrobial metabolites that does not influence food quality or (3) the application of pro-technological microorganisms harboring protective effects. A number of microorganisms and other biological agents have been regarded to be crucial in the biopreservation of food, indirectly (by changing pH or osmotic pressure) or directly (by producing toxic compounds, antimicrobial components, enzymes, antibiotics, etc.).
Although the most intensive studies and practical applications of microbial antagonisms have focused on lactic acid bacteria (LAB) [4], considerable research has been aimed in the past two decades at investigating the use of naturally-occurring yeast for inhibiting the growth of food-borne bacteria and for managing postharvest diseases on a variety of fruits and vegetables with various mechanisms [5,6].
All yeasts are eukaryotic microorganisms, which are most commonly defined as unicellular fungi, although unicellular growth occurs within several fungal taxonomic orders and many types of yeast can grow by forming pseudo-hyphae.
In nature, yeast species are found mainly in association with plants or animals, but are also present in soil and aquatic environments [7]. They colonize an extremely wide range of ecosystems, both natural and in connection with human activities, mainly for their ability to grow and survive in different and stressful environments [8]. Few other microbial organisms match yeast in terms of historical, economic and scientific significance, as the spontaneous fermentation of wine, beer and cereal doughs is one of the oldest biopreservation technologies, empirically used since ancient times. Among the potential microbial antagonists, yeasts have been extensively studied because they possess many features that make them suitable as biocontrol agents [6,9]. Many yeast species have simple nutritional requirements, and they are able to colonize dry surfaces for long periods of time and can grow rapidly on inexpensive substrates in bioreactors, characteristics that are particularly relevant in the selection of biocontrol agents [10]; however, understanding the ecological fitness of the potential yeast biocontrol agents and developing strategies to enhance their stress tolerance are essential to their efficacy and commercial application [11]. Moreover, they do not produce allergenic spores or mycotoxins, as many mycelial fungi or antibiotics that might be produced by bacterial antagonists [12,13].

2. Antagonistic Mechanisms of Yeast

Antagonistic characteristics of yeast have been attributed mainly to: (1) competition for nutrients; (2) pH changes in the medium as a result of growth-coupled ion exchange or organic acid production; (3) tolerance to high concentrations of ethanol [14]; and (4) the secretion and release of antimicrobial compounds, such as killer toxins or “mycocins” [15,16,17,18].
According to Do Carmo-Sousa [19], competition for nutrients is probably the most important factor in yeast ecology. The competition for nutrients is considered to be a primary mode of action against postharvest fungal pathogens, especially in fruits [20,21]. Yeast promptly depletes glucose, fructose or sucrose, preventing the growth of undesirable microorganisms, as already extensively exploited in food and beverage fermentation for the species Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Moreover, the sugar competition was demonstrated in the antagonist pink yeast Sporobolomyces roseus against Botrytis cinerea [22] and in the Pichia guilliermondii species against Ceratocystis paradoxa [23]. The competition for nitrogenous compounds, especially in the carbon-rich environment of fruit wounds, was determined for Candida sake [24] and Candida guilliermondii [25] against Penicillium expansum. Iron is essential for microbial growth and also for pathogenesis; the production, release and uptake of iron-scavenging molecules, called siderophores, is a major microbial mechanism for iron acquisition [26], and numerous examples of siderophore-mediated interspecies competition have been described. Iron sequestration by yeast has been exploited in novel systems for biological control of postharvest pathogens sensitive to iron deprivation [27,28]. This primary competition strategy was demonstrated in the species Metschnikowia pulcherrima, which produces the red pigment pulcherrimin in the presence of iron, indicating the uptake of ferric ions from the surrounding substrate, against the fungal pathogens B. cinerea, Alternaria alternata and P. expansum [29,30].
Yeast killer toxins, also named mycocins, were initially defined as extracellular proteins, glycoproteins or glycolipids that disrupt the cell membrane function in susceptible yeast bearing receptors for the compound [16,31,32], whose activity is directed primarily against yeast closely related to the producer strain, which has a protective factor. The first mycocins were identified in association with S. cerevisiae in the brewing industry [33]. Several others have since been isolated, frequently where yeast populations occur in high density and in highly competitive conditions, as for example fermented olive brine [34,35,36] and fermenting grape must [37]. Killer toxin production has been demonstrated among many yeast genera, including Saccharomyces, Candida, Cryptococcus, Debaryomyces, Kluyveromyces, Pichia, Torulopsis, Williopsis and Zygosaccharomyces [38,39,40,41,42,43,44]. Genetic and molecular studies have shown that the killer toxin feature may be carried out on extra-chromosomal elements, such as double-stranded RNA viruses [45,46], on double-stranded linear DNA [42,47,48] or on a chromosome [42,49,50].
The well-known mechanisms of the killer toxin against other fungi are the inhibition of β-glucan synthesis or hydrolysis of β-glucan in the cell wall of sensitive strains [44,51,52,53,54], the interruption of cell division by blocking the DNA synthesis [52,55,56], the cleavage of tRNA [57], the blocking of calcium uptake [55,58] and the ion leakage caused by the formation of channels on the cytoplasmic membrane [18,59,60].
Unlike yeast-against-yeast antagonism, the antibacterial properties of yeast are much less documented. The first positive indications of the antagonistic activity of yeast were published in the early 20th century [61] from Hayduck, who reported a volatile thermolabile toxic extract from yeast, probably an amine, which inhibits the growth of Escherichia coli and Staphylococci [62]. Fatichenti et al. [63] showed that the antibacterial activity of Debaryomyces hansenii against Clostridium tyrobutyricum and Clostridium butyricum was related to its ability to produce both extracellular and intracellular antimicrobial compounds. Antibacterial activity was also detected in Kloeckera apiculata and Kluyveromyces thermotolerans, secreting substances that inhibited the growth of beer-spoilage bacteria [64]. Polonelli and Morace [65] also reported on a killer phenomenon directed against a wide range of unrelated microorganisms, among others, bacteria. Dieuleveux et al. [66] subsequently described the inhibition of Listeria by a strain of Geotrichum candidum isolated from a French red smear cheese able to synthetize d-3-phenyllacticand d-3-indollactic acids. Furthermore, Cavalero and Cooper [67] demonstrated that Candida bombicola produces extracellular glycolipids, called sophorosides, which have been proven to have antibacterial activity mainly against Gram-positive bacteria [68]. Having tested about 400 yeast isolates, mainly from dairy sources, Goerges et al. [69] reported a strain of Candida intermedia able to reduce viable L. monocytogenes counts by four log units and a strain of Kluyveromyces marxianus able to suppress the pathogen growth by three log units. The same author isolated a strain of Pichia norvegensis able to reduce L. monocytogenes counts by seven log cycles [70]. Moreover, Hatoum et al. [71] characterized anti-listerial hydrophobic peptides, extracted from four dairy yeast cultures identified as D. hansenii, Pichia fermentans, Candida tropicalis and Wickerhamomyces anomalus, which induced leakage in bacterial cells and ultimately caused bacterial lysis. More recently, Chen and co-workers [72] isolated two strains of Kluyveromyces marxianus producing mycocins from Koumiss in Inner Mongolia and demonstrated that the two crude extracts were effective at preventing Escherichia coli disease in mice. Finally, a very recent study, aimed at evaluating some probiotic properties of the P. pastoris strain X-33 wild-type, demonstrated the growth inhibition of Salmonella typhimurium in vitro and the reduction of bacterial adhesion to the human colorectal cancer HCT-116 cells [73].

3. Applications of Antagonistic Activities of Yeast in Foods

3.1. Processed Food and Beverages

It is widely recognized that the overall product quality in industries, such as winemaking, sausage and dairy production, baking, etc., is mainly correlated with the development of spoilage microorganisms [74,75,76]. In the past few decades, several studies were focused on the application of antagonistic yeast starter cultures in various food and beverage processes for improving their safety and sensory qualities, respectively, by the inhibition of pathogenic and spoilage organisms (Table 1).
Although S. cerevisiae wine starter cultures are normally able to dominate native yeast in the grape must during fermentation [77], most studies have validated the use of killer yeast as starter cultures to prevent the growth of spoilage yeast and bacteria in wine fermentations [78,79,80,81,82,83]. In the production of sparkling wine, Todd et al. [84] studied the behavior of two sensitive strains of S. cerevisiae in the presence of a mixture of two K2 killer toxins, coming to the conclusion that this interaction accelerates the yeast autolysis and, as a consequence, the release of proteins that affects the end product quality. S. cerevisiae strains that produce K2 and Klus toxins were found to be effective for preventing the growth of spoilage yeast strains [79,85,86]; however, numerous non-Saccharomyces yeast species present on the surface of grapes are insensitive to the S. cerevisiae killer toxins and they are able to inhibit the growth of spoilage yeast. The killer toxin secreted by Tetrapisispora phaffii, named KpKt by Comitini and Ciani [87], has been identified as a β-glucanase with extensive anti-Hanseniaspora/-Kloeckera activity under winemaking conditions, by inducing ultrastructural modifications in the cell wall of sensitive strains, with a high specific cytocidal activity, a selective action towards target yeast cells [88] and, thus, potentially useful for the wine industry. Other studies of Comitini and co-workers [81,89] showed that killer toxins secreted by W. anomalus (Pikt) and Kluyveromyces wickerhamii (Kwkt) are active against Dekkera and Brettanomyces spoilage yeast species that cause unpleasant odors in wine during fermentation, ageing and storage. The killer activity of autochthonous W. anomalus from the northwest region of Argentina was demonstrated against Brettanomyces bruxellensis, Dekkera anomala, Pichia membranifaciens and Meyerozyma guilliermondii [90]. Numerous studies have confirmed remarkable inhibitory properties of the killer toxins of W. anomalus and Williopsis mrakii [51,91,92,93] against a wide range of pathogenic and spoilage fungi. Two killer toxins, CpKT1 and CpKT2, from the wine-isolated yeast Candida pyralidae exhibited killer activity against several B. bruxellensis strains, especially in grape juice, but did not inhibit the commercial S. cerevisiae tester strain [94]. Similarly, the killer activity of Ustilago maydis producing a KP6-related toxin was proven to be effective against B. bruxellensis, while S. cerevisiae was fully resistant to its killer activity [95]. The antagonistic properties of yeast can also influence the interactions of wine yeast and malolactic bacteria, mainly Oenococcus oeni, stimulating or preventing the progress of malolactic fermentation that improves wine stability and quality [96]. With this aim, screening against undesirable lactic acid bacteria (LAB) showed that killer toxins produced by S. cerevisiae and W. anomalus were able to inhibit the growth of Lactobacillus hilgardii, as well as its histamine production [90].
Killer toxin-producing yeast strains have also been proposed for multiple applications in the production of beer [97] and sake [98], although this phenotype has been broadly found in salted fermented food, such as fermented olive [35,36,99,100,101,102]. Salt, in fact, is necessary to reveal the killer phenotype of some yeast species [97] and may broaden the activity spectra of a killer yeast against target strains [103]; as killer toxins induce the formation of ion-permeable channels in lipid bilayer membranes, causing a disruption of the ionic equilibrium across the plasma membrane, as reported by Kagan [104], the incidence of salt increases the mortality of the intoxicated cells [99]. The killer character has also been exploited in bread production by the use of hybridized wild killer yeast with an industrial strain of S. cerevisiae [105]. Pérez-Nevado et al. [106] isolated high percentages of killer yeast on Jamón de Huelva and Dehesa de Extremadura SDO dry-cure hams, while Virgili et al. [107] successfully used killer yeast strains isolated from the surface of Italian typical dry-cured hams, to control the growth of a toxigenic strain of Penicillium nordicum and to inhibit the ochratoxin A (OTA) biosynthesis.
In the dairy sector, the use of killer starter yeast strains to prevent spoilage in cheese [63,108,109], yogurt [93,110,111,112,113] and other foods [114] has also drawn considerable attention.
However, one of the main factors that should be taken into consideration for the application of killer toxins in food processes is the pH and the temperature range at which the activity is high, as it can limit their effectiveness, especially in food fermentations. Although there is large variation in the optimal pH and temperature conditions for various toxins, they are generally active between pH values of 4.0 and 5.4 and at temperatures below 30 °C [41,115,116]. However, Hara et al. [117] reported an effective killer action of a hybrid S. cerevisiae culture at pH values between 3.0 and 4.5 and at temperatures between 15 and 35 °C, and Ciani and Fatichenti [118] reported an extensive anti-Hanseniaspora activity of Tetrapisispora phaffii (formerly Kluyveromyces phaffii) DBVPG (Industrial Yeast Collection of the University of Perugia) 6076 in the pH range between 3 and 5 and at temperatures lower than 40 °C, making them both suitable for wine making. Another example of killer toxin that is active in a broader range of pH values and temperatures than what is described for other zymocins is CnKT (Candida nodaensis Killer Toxin) [119], from the extreme halotolerant yeast Candida nodaensis, as it proved to be active between pH 2.6 and 6.0 and at temperatures ranging from 18 to 30 °C; moreover, its activity was stimulated by sodium ions, making CnKT a promising candidate for several biotechnological applications, e.g., in the preservation of high-salt food products from spoilage by other yeasts.

3.2. Unprocessed Foods

In addition to their role in the production of processed foods and beverages, yeast antagonize spoilage or toxin-producing microorganisms in unprocessed foods by several mechanisms (Table 2). The most promising strategy to achieve this objective seems to be the use of specific yeast strains exhibiting such inhibitory features, selected among the epiphytic microbial community of fruits and vegetables and then phenotypically adapted to this niche. The advantage of being part of the natural microbial community already established on the target product may facilitate their colonization and survival on produce when applied in appropriate numbers.
Several yeast species naturally occurring on the surface of fruits and vegetables have been widely studied for the control of postharvest diseases [120], to reduce the chemical residue on fresh products and to bypass the developing resistances to widely-used synthetic fungicides [121]; for their efficacy, stability, safety and ease of application, yeast-based biocontrol products are already available on the market and are registered on several commodities against rots caused by genera Penicillium, Aspergillus, Botrytis and Rhizopus [6].
The biocontrol abilities of S. cerevisiae and W. anomalus strains have been recently proven to be correlated with killer phenotype [122,123], while in other yeast species, the antagonistic activity has been mainly attributed to competition for nutrients and space, production of hydrolytic enzymes or volatile organic compounds (VOCs). In particular, the competition for iron was reported to play a significant role in biocontrol interactions of M. pulcherrima [29]; yeast strains belonging to this species are effective against postharvest decay of apple, table grape, grapefruit, cherry tomato, sweet cherries and peach [30,124,125,126,127,128,129]. The antagonistic activity of Aureobasidium pullulans mainly includes nutrient competition [130] and production of glucanase, chitinase, protease and extracellular proteases [131,132]. The ability to rapidly colonize the fruit tissues, competing with the pathogens B. cinerea and P. expansum for nutrients, has been recognized as the main mechanism responsible for the antagonistic efficacy on pear fruits [133].
With regards to VOCs, the ethyl acetate produced by W. anomalus has been shown to have antifungal activity during airtight storage of grain [134,135], while more recently, Hua et al. [136] stated that its biocontrol ability can be attributed to the production of 2-phenylethanol, which affects spore germination, growth, toxin production and gene expression in Aspergillus flavus. A similar mechanism based on VOC production has been identified by Fiori and co-workers [137] for two non-fermenting (Cyberlindnera jadinii and Candida friedrichii) and two low-fermenting (Candida intermedia and Lachancea thermotolerans) yeast strains against the pathogenic fungus and OTA-producer Aspergillus carbonarius.
Yeast strains isolated from sugar cane and maize rhizosphere, leaves and stalks, identified as Torulaspora globosa and C. intermedia, were able to inhibit the growth of phytopathogenic molds Colletotrichum sublineolum and Colletotrichum graminicola, both causal agents of the anthracnose disease in, respectively, sorghum and maize, with the first species also exhibiting killer activity [138].
The antagonistic mechanism based on hydrolytic enzyme production, together with competition for nitrogen and carbon sources and induction of host resistance, was demonstrated for Meyerozyma guilliermondii strain M8 against B. cinerea on apples [139]. Lytic enzymes were similarly produced by epiphytic isolates of Rhodotorula mucilaginosa and Candida famata in controlling postharvest anthracnose in papaya fruit caused by Colletotrichum gloeosporioides [140].
In the last few years, the W. anomalus species, which is frequently associated with food and feed products, has been extensively studied for the widely intergeneric killing spectrum of produced toxins against postharvest spoilage molds. The antimycotic properties of W. anomalus against grain storage fungi were originally described by Björnberg and Schnürer in 1993 [141]. Later, Jijakli and Lepoivre [142] proposed that the suppression of B. cinerea by W. anomalus is partly due to the activity of an exo-β-1,3-glucanase, while Masih et al. [143] showed that B. cinerea displays emptied hyphae when in contact with W. anomalus yeast cells. More recently, similar investigations by Mohamed and Saad [144] have shown by scanning electron microscopy the antagonistic effects of W. anomalus cells interacting with the fungus Botryodiplodia theobromae. The analysis showed pitting and disruption on hyphal surfaces that were totally penetrated and killed. Druvefors and Schnürer [145] found that W. anomalus was the best yeast among 60 different tested yeast species with regards to the inhibition of Penicillium roqueforti growth in test tube versions of airtight grain silos; in addition, its inoculation to cereal feed grain improved feed hygiene by reducing molds and Enterobacteriaceae and enhanced the nutritional value by increasing the protein content and reducing the concentration of the antinutritional compound phytate [146].
Exo-β-1,3 glucanases have been shown to contribute to the mechanism of action of the antagonistic yeast W. anomalus (strain K) against B. cinerea and P. expansum on apples [147,148], B. cinerea on grapes [30], Penicillium digitatum on “Tarocco” and “Valencia” oranges [123,149] and C. gloeosporioides on papayas [150].
Table 1. Yeast strains and antagonistic mechanisms in processed food and beverage applications.
Table 1. Yeast strains and antagonistic mechanisms in processed food and beverage applications.
SpeciesYeast StrainMechanismApplicationReferences
C. pyralidaeIWBT Y1140, IWBT Y1057n.s.In grape juice agst. B. bruxellensis[94]
D. hanseniiCYC (Complutense Yeast Collection) 1021n.s.In olive fermentation agst. C. boidinii, S. exiguous and K. lactis[99]
D. hanseniiB9010n.s.In yoghurt and on cheese at non-refrigerated agst. Aspergillus, Byssochlamys, Eurotium[110]
D. hansenii, D. marasmus, C. zeylanoides, C. famata, H. burtoniin.s.n.s.In ham agst. P. nordicum growth and OTA production [106,107]
Filobasidium floriformeNRRL Y7454sugar competitionIn apple agst. B. cinerea[22]
Kluyveromyces wickerhamii (Kwkt)n.s.n.s.In wine agst. Dekkera and Brettanomyces[81,89]
P. membranaefaciensCYC 1106, CYC 1108n.s.In table olive fermentation agst. C. boidinii[99]
S. cerevisiaen.s.K2 and Klus toxinsIn winemaking agst. spoilage yeast strains [79,84,85]
S. cerevisiaeCF-K*115dsRNAIn sake fermentation[98]
S. cerevisiaeCYC 1115n.s.In table olive fermentation agst. C. boidinii[99]
S. cerevisiaeItati K+n.s.Transfer of killer particles to the industrial strain for the bakery industry[105]
S. cerevisiaeCf8, M12n.s.In winemaking agst. Brettanomyces bruxellensis, Dekkera anomala, Pichia membranifaciens[122]
Tetrapisispora phaffiiDBVPG 6706β-glucanaseIn winemaking agst. Hanseniaspora/Kloeckera[87]
Torulaspora globosa1S100, 1S111, 1S112, 2S01, 2S04, 2F58Killer toxinIn sorghum and maize agst. Colletotrichum sublineolum and Colletotrichum graminicola[138]
Ustilago maydisCYC 1410KP6 toxin, ion channel, possibly causing the leakage of K+ or NH4+ from cells In grape juice agst. B. bruxellensis strains [95]
W. anomalusCYC 1027n.s.In table olive fermentation agst. C. boidinii[99]
W. anomalusCf20n.s.In winemaking agst. Brettanomyces bruxellensis, Dekkera anomala, Pichia membranifaciens and Meyerozyma guilliermondii [90]
W. anomalus(Pikt) n.s.In winemaking agst. Dekkera and Brettanomyces[81]
Williopsis mrakiiLKB (Laboratory of Kodama Brewery) 169 = NCYC (National Collection of Yeast Culture) 251n.s.In yogurt and maize silage agst. Candida krusei D1241 and Saccharomyces cerevisiae D1247[93]
W. saturnus var. saturnus CBS254Competition for space and killer toxin In cheese biopreservation agst. S. cerevisiae and K. marxianus In yoghurt agst. C. kefir, K. marxianus, S. cerevisiae, S. bayanus, Byssochlamys, Eurotium and Penicillium[111,112,113]
n.s., not specified.
Table 2. Yeast strains, mechanism of action and applications against postharvest pathogenic molds on different commodities.
Table 2. Yeast strains, mechanism of action and applications against postharvest pathogenic molds on different commodities.
SpeciesYeast StrainMechanismApplicationReferences
Aureobasidium pullulansPI1n.s.On grape berries agst. B. cinerea[30]
A. pullulansPL5β-1,3-glucanase, exochitinase, endo-chitinase and competition for nutrients and spaceOn plums and peaches agst. M. laxa On apples agst. B. cinerea and P. expansum On stone fruit agst. M. laxa On pome fruits agst. B. cinerea and P. expansum [127,131]
A. pullulansLS-30Competition for nutrients; extracellular exochitinase
(N-acetyl-β-d-glucosaminidase (Nagase)) and β-1-3-glucanase
On table grapes agst. B. cinerea, P. expansum, Rhizopus stolonifer and A. niger On apple fruit agst. B. cinerea and P. expansum[130]
A. pullulansL47Competition for nutrientsOn strawberries grown under plastic tunnels agst. B. cinerea and R. stolonifer; on apple agst. B. cinerea and P. expansum[132,133]
C. intermedia235VOCsOn grape berries agst. A. carbonarius and ochratoxin A (OTA) contamination in wine and grape juice[137]
C. oleophilaL66Competition for nutrientsOn strawberries grown under plastic tunnels agst. B. cinerea and R. stolonifer[133]
Candida famatan.s.Lytic enzymeOn papaya agst. Colletotrichum gloeosporioides[141]
Candida friedrichii778n.s.On grape berries agst. A. carbonarius and ochratoxin A (OTA) contamination in wine and grape juice[137]
Candida guilliermondii3C-1b, 1FCompetition for nitrogenous compoundsOn apple against Penicillium expansum[25]
Candida intermedia2S02, 2S03n.s.In sorghum and maize agst. Colletotrichum sublineolum and Colletotrichum graminicola[138]
Candida saken.s.Competition for nitrogenous compoundsOn pear against Penicillium expansum[24]
Candida vanderwaltiiL60n.s.On strawberries grown under plastic tunnels agst. B. cinerea and R. stolonifer[132]
Cryptococcus laurentiiLS28n.s.On apples for integrated control of P. expansum and patulin [128]
Cryptococcus humicolaNRRL Y1266Sugar competitionIn apple agst. B. cinerea[22]
Cyberlindnera jadinii273n.s.On grape berries agst. A. carbonarius and ochratoxin A (OTA) contamination in wine and grape juice[137]
Lachancea thermotolerans751n.s.On grape berries agst. A. carbonarius and ochratoxin A (OTA) contamination in wine and grape juice[137]
M. pulcherrimaMPR3n.s.on grape berriesagst. B. cinerea[30]
M. pulcherrimaST1-D10, ST2-A10, ST3-E1, ST3-E13, T4-A2, T5-A2, FMB-24H-2, FMB-140H-7An.s.On apple agst. P. expansum [125]
M. pulcherrimaGS37, GS88, GA102, BIO126Competition for nutrient and spaceOn apples agst. B. cinerea and P. expansum[126]
Metschnikowia spp.LS15Competition for nutrient and spaceOn table grape agst. B. cinerea[124]
M. pulcherrimaMACH1Iron competitionOn apples agst. B. cinerea, Alternaria alternata and P. expansum[29]
M. pulcherrimaDisva 267n.s.On sweet cherries agst. Monilinia laxa [129]
Meyerozyma guilliermondii443β-1,3-glucanaseOn papaya agst. C. gloeosporioides [150]
Pichia guilliermondiiPichiaSugar competitionOn pineapple agst. Ceratocystis paradoxa[23]
Pichia guilliermondiiM8β-1,3-glucanase and chitinaseOn apples agst. Botrytis cinerea[139]
Rhodosporidium kratochvilovaeLS11n.s.On apples agst. P. expansum and patulin [121]
Rhodosporidium toruloidesNRRL Y1091Sugar competitionIn apple agst. B. cinerea[22]
Rhodotorula mucilaginosan.s.Lytic enzymeOn papaya agst. Colletotrichum gloeosporioides[140]
Sporobolomyces roseusFS-43-238Sugar competitionIn apple agst. B. cinerea[22]
W. anomalusDisva 2n.s.On sweet cherries agst. Monilinia laxa[129]
W. anomalusJ121Ethyl acetate and ethanol derived from glycolysisIn airtight storage of wheat agst. Penicillium roqueforti and Enterobacteriaceae[136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147]
W. anomalusWRL-076VOCs (2-phenylethanol)In tree nuts agst. Aspergillus flavus [136]
W. anomalusStrain Kexo-β-1,3-glucanaseOn apples agst. B. cinerea[142,147,148]
W. anomalusstrain FY-102n.s.On grape vine agst. B. cinerea[143]
W. anomalusMoh 93, Moh 104n.s.On guava (Psidium guajava L) agst. Botryodiplodia theobromae[144]
W. anomalus422β-1,3-glucanaseOn papaya agst. C. gloeosporioides[150]
W. anomalusBS91, BS92, BCA15β-glucanaseOn orange agst. Penicillium digitatum On grape berries agst. B. cinerea[30,123,149]
Notes: VOCs, volatile organic compounds; n.s., not specified.

4. Killer Toxins: From a Competitive Advantage to the Application as Bio-Drugs

The killer yeast phenomenon is raising interest due to the broad spectrum of activity against human and animal fungal and bacterial infections of yeast killer toxins and due to the recent identification of genes involved in antibiotic resistance and the lack of new antifungal agents [151,152,153,154,155]. The investigated yeast strains and their mechanism of action against human and animal pathogens are summarized in Table 3. W. anomalus toxins showed antifungal activity against mouth, bladder and skin Candida spp. isolates, as toxins from this species hydrolyze β-1,3-glucans, which are the essential cell wall components of most fungal cells [156]. Zygosaccharomyces bailii zygocin was active against Candida albicans, C. glabrata, C. krusei and Sporothrix schenckii [157]. Pichia kudriavzevii RY55 toxin exhibited excellent antibacterial activity against several pathogens of human health significance, such as E. coli, Enterococcus faecalis, Klebsiella sp., Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Pseudomonas alcaligenes [158].
However, the direct application of killer toxin is limited due to the glycoproteic nature of mycocins that may lead to immune response in human bloodstream due to antigenicity and toxicity [159]. Moreover, the activity range of mycocins is restricted, as temperature and pH are limiting factors for most of the killer toxins, which are inactive over 37 °C and at neutral pH. The reason for such behavior is possibly due to the source of isolation, usually fermented food or environmental samples, as recent studies from Cappelli et al. [160] reported a killer toxin strain, W. anomalus WaF17.12, isolated from a different source, the malaria vector Anopheles stephensi mosquitoes, which is active in a wider range of pH (4.5–8.0).
Table 3. Medical and veterinary applications of the most studied killer yeast strains and the mechanisms of action.
Table 3. Medical and veterinary applications of the most studied killer yeast strains and the mechanisms of action.
SpeciesYeast StrainMechanismApplicationReferences
W. anomalusWaF17.12β-1,3-glucanaseIn Anopheles stephensi agst. Plasmodium (Malaria)[160]
W. anomalusATCC 96603β-1,3-glucanaseAntibiobodies agst. Candida[161,162]
W. anomalusATCC 96603β-1,3-glucanaseSingle-chain fragments (scFv) agst. Candida spp., Staphylococcus spp., Enterococcus spp., oral Streptococcus, Cryptococcus neoformans[163,164]
W. anomalusATCC 96603β-1,3-glucanasescFv (single chain Fragment variable) agst. Paracoccidioides brasiliensis and Malassezia pachydermatis in animals[165,166]
W. saturnus var. mrakiiIFO 0895Inhibition of cell wall β- 1,3-glucan synthaseAntibiobodies agst. Candida and Cryptococcus[167,168]
Based on the anti-idiotypic network theory, studies from Polonelli and Morace [161], starting from the identification of biologically-active fragments from W. anomalus killer toxin (formerly Pichia anomala; PaKT), lead to the production of monoclonal antibodies able to neutralize the activity of PaKT (mAbKT4). Such a finding allowed the production of anti-idiotypic antibodies (anti-id abs) that competed with PaKT for the binding site of mAbKT4 and that were active against C. albicans. The so-called “antibiobodies” (antibiotic-like antibodies) showed direct fungicidal effects without the intervention of other factors [162]. Through the immunization of rats and mice against mAbKT4, other monoclonal antibiobodies were obtained, as well as peptides that occur during the idiotypic cascade (mAb K10 and mAb K20) and single-chain fragments (scFv) [163]. In particular, from scFv H6.
Optimized by alanine scanning, a synthetic peptide called KP (AKVTMTCSAS) that demonstrated a wide in vitro, in vivo and in planta antimicrobial activity was obtained and tested against a wide spectrum of pathogens, such as C. albicans, Pneumocystis carinii, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, S. aureus, S. haemolyticus, E. faecalis, E. faecium and Streptococcus pneumoniae. Killer decaPeptide (KP) exerted a strong fungicidal activity, not only against C. albicans, but also against capsular and acapsular Cryptococcus neoformans cells, as β-glucan, which is the KP target, is a critical component of the cryptococcal cell wall [164]. The application of killer antibiobodies and their engineered derivatives demonstrated their potential in the prevention of dental caries due to their activity against oral Streptococci [155]; the KP therapy against paracoccidioidomycosis (PCM), which is endemic among individuals living and working in rural areas, especially in South Africa, was able to markedly reduce the Paracoccidioides brasiliensis load in organs (liver, lung, spleen) of infected animals [165]. Lastly, KP was effective against Malassezia pachydermatis, both in vitro and in vivo, reducing clinical symptoms and population size of M. pachydermatis in the ear canal of dogs affected by otitis [166].
Similar studies were conducted by Selvakumar et al. and Kabir et al. [167,168], who constructed an anti-idiotypic scFv phage library of W. saturnus var. mrakii IFO 0895 HM-1 killer toxin using the splenic lymphocytes of mice immunized by idiotypic vaccination with the HM-1 killer toxin neutralizing monoclonal antibody (nmAb-KT). The mechanism of cytocidal activity of HM-1 and scFv antibodies was the inhibition of cell wall β-1,3-glucan synthase, a trans-membrane enzyme responsible for synthesizing the cell wall component β-1,3-glucan [169,170]. Kabir et al. [161] published a study on the antifungal potential of peptides derived from both anti-idiotypic antibody and its original fungicidal protein; in particular, SP3 or SP6 peptides proved their potential against Candida and Cryptococcus species infections and as a promising adjunct for conventional antibiotics. Furthermore, S. cerevisiae K2 toxin, with a C-terminal truncation, was obtained in E. coli as the host for large-scale production and suitable for polyclonal antibody production [171].
In light of the strong need for new antimicrobial drugs, killer toxin antibiobodies and derived peptides thereof, which can be easily produced and engineered, are emerging as an important class of therapeutic agents for the treatment of various human diseases [172].

5. Conclusions

Yeast constitute a large group of microorganisms characterized by a strong ability to compete with other microorganisms for niche colonization. The competition mechanisms have been extensively studied, and among them, killer toxins seem to play a primary role. Killer yeast species have a large biodiversity, in terms of molecular characteristic, genetic determinants, spectra of action and mechanisms of toxin action. Nevertheless, only a small fraction of recognized killer toxins has been characterized in detail so far.
The possibility that additional unknown toxic mechanism in other killer yeast species may occur, together with the potential of known killer toxins to be applied in the food industry as adjunct bioprotective cultures or as a component of active packaging, represents a promising strategy to reduce the use of chemical preservatives. Moreover, the development of killer toxins into a new generation of antimicrobial agents with useful application in the pharmaceutical and medical sectors, for the treatment of microbial infections with resistance to conventional drugs, should represent in the coming future a further boost to the research on this topic.

Author Contributions

Serena Muccilli and Cristina Restuccia contributed equally to acquisition of data and drafting of the manuscript. Cristina Restuccia was responsible for conception, design and critical revision.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ross, R.P.; Morgan, S.; Hill, C. Preservation and fermentation: Past, present and future. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2002, 79, 3–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Carocho, M.; Morales, P.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R. Natural food additives: Quo vadis? Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 45, 284–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Stiles, M.E. Biopreservation by lactic acid bacteria. Antonie van Leeuwen. 1996, 70, 331–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Galvez, A.; Grande Burgos, M.J.; López, R.L.; Perez Pulido, R. Food Biopreservation; Springer-Verlag: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 15–22. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chi, Z.M.; Liu, G.L.; Zhao, S.F.; Li, J.; Peng, Y. Marine yeasts as biocontrol agents and producers of bio-products. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010, 86, 1227–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Liu, J.; Sui, Y.; Wisniewski, M.; Droby, S.; Liu, Y. Review: Utilization of antagonistic yeasts to manage postharvest fungal diseases of fruit. Int. J. Food. Microbiol. 2013, 167, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Lachance, M.A. Yeasts; John Wiley & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  8. Walker, G.M. Pichia anomala: Cell physiology and biotechnology relative to other yeasts. Antonie van Leeuwen. 2011, 99, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Santos, A.; Sánchez, A.; Marquina, D. Yeast as biological agents to control Botrytis cinerea. Microbiol. Res. 2004, 159, 331–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Chanchaichaovivat, A.; Ruenwongsa, P.; Panijpan, B. Screening and identification of yeast strains from fruits and vegetables: Potential for biological control of postharvest chilli anthracnose (Colletotrichum capsici). Biol. Control 2007, 42, 326–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Sui, Y.; Wisniewski, M.; Droby, S.; Liu, J. Responses of yeast biocontrol agents to environmental stress. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 2968–2975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. El-Tarabily, K.A.; Sivasithamparam, K. Potential of yeasts as biocontrol agents of soil-borne fungal plant pathogens and as plant growth promoters. Mycoscience 2006, 47, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Nunes, C.A. Biological control of postharvest diseases of fruit. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2012, 133, 181–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Passoth, V.; Schnürer, J. Non-conventional yeasts in antifungal application. In Functional Genetics of Industrial Yeasts; de Winde, H., Ed.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2003; Volume 2, pp. 297–330. [Google Scholar]
  15. Suzuki, C.; Ando, Y.; Machida, S. Interaction of SMKT, a killer toxin produced by Pichia farinosa, with the yeast cell membranes. Yeast 2001, 18, 1471–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Golubev, W.I. Antagonistic interactions among yeasts. In Biodiversity and Ecophysiology of Yeasts; Rosa, C.A., Peter, G., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2006; pp. 197–219. [Google Scholar]
  17. Young, T.W.; Yagiu, M. A comparison of the killer character in different yeasts and its classification. Antonie van Leeuwen. 1978, 44, 59–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Schmitt, M.J.; Breinig, F. Yeast viral killer toxins: Lethality and self-protection. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2006, 4, 212–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Do Carmo-Sousa, L. Distribution of yeasts in nature. In The Yeasts; Rose, A.H., Harrison, J.S., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1969; Volume 1, pp. 79–105. [Google Scholar]
  20. Janisiewicz, W.J. Enhancement of biocontrol of blue mold with the nutrient analog 2-deoxy-d-glucose on apples and pears. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1994, 60, 2671–2676. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  21. Mercier, J.; Wilson, C.L. Colonization of apple wounds by naturally occurring microflora and introduced Candida oleophila and their effect on infection by Botrytis cinerea during storage. Biol. Control 1994, 4, 138–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Filonow, A.B.; Vishniac, H.S.; Anderson, J.A.; Janisiewicz, W.J. Biological control of Botrytis cinerea in apple by yeasts from various habitats and their putative mechanisms of antagonism. Biol. Control 1996, 7, 212–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Reyes, M.E.Q.; Rohrbach, K.G.; Paull, R.E. Microbial antagonists control postharvest black rot of pineapple fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2004, 33, 193–203. [Google Scholar]
  24. Nunes, C.; Usall, J.; Teixidó, N.; Viñas, I. Biological control of postharvest pear diseases using a bacterium, Pantoea agglomerans CPA-2. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2001, 70, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Scherm, B.; Ortu, G.; Muzzu, A.; Budroni, M.; Arras, G.; Migheli, Q. Biocontrol activity of antagonistic yeasts against Penicillium expansum on apple. J. Plant Pathol. 2003, 85, 205–213. [Google Scholar]
  26. Wandersman, C.; Delepelaire, P. Bacterial iron sources: From siderophores to hemophores. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2004, 58, 611–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Calvente, V.; Benuzzi, D.; de Tosetti, M.I.S. Antagonistic action of siderophores from Rhodotorula glutinis upon the postharvest pathogen Penicillium expansum. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 1999, 43, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhang, H.; Zheng, X.; Yu, T. Biological control of postharvest diseases of peach with Cryptococcus laurentii. Food Control 2007, 18, 287–291. [Google Scholar]
  29. Saravanakumar, D.; Ciavorella, A.; Spadaro, D.; Garibaldi, A.; Gullino, M. Metschnikowia pulcherrima strain MACH1 outcompetes Botrytis cinerea, Alternaria alternata and Penicillium expansum in apples through iron depletion. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2008, 49, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Parafati, L.; Vitale, A.; Restuccia, C.; Cirvilleri, G. Biocontrol ability and action mechanism of food-isolated yeast strains against Botrytis cinerea causing postharvest bunch rot of table grape. Food Microbiol. 2015, 47, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Kulakovskaya, T.; Kulakovskaya, E.; Golubev, W. ATP leakage from yeast cells treated by extracellular glycolipids of Pseudozyma fusiformata. FEMS Yeast Res. 2003, 3, 401–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kulakovskaya, T.V.; Shashkov, A.S.; Kulakovskaya, E.V.; Golubev, W.I. Characterization of an antifungal glycolipid secreted by the yeast Sympodiomycopsis paphiopedili. FEMS Yeast Res. 2004, 5, 247–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Bevan, E.A.; Somers, J.M. Somatic segregation of the killer (k) and neutral (n) cytoplasmic genetic determinants in yeast. Genet. Res. 1969, 14, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Muccilli, S.; Caggia, C.; Randazzo, C.L.; Restuccia, C. Yeast dynamics during the fermentation of brined green olives treated in the field with kaolin and Bordeaux mixture to control the olive fruit fly. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2011, 148, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Psani, M.; Kotzekidou, P. Technological characteristics of yeast strains and their potential as starter adjuncts in Greek-style black olive fermentation. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2006, 22, 1329–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hernández, A.; Martín, A.; Córdoba, M.G.; Benito, M.J.; Aranda, E.; Pérez-Nevado, F. Determination of killer activity in yeasts isolated from the elaboration of seasoned green table olives. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008, 121, 178–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Rodríguez-Cousiño, N.; Maqueda, M.; Ambrona, J.; Zamora, E.; Esteban, R.; Ramírez, M. A new wine Saccharomyces cerevisiae double-stranded RNA virus encoded killer toxin (Klus) with broad antifungal activity is evolutionarily related to a chromosomal host gene. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 1822–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Young, T.W. Killer yeasts. In The Yeasts, 2nd ed.; Rose, A.H., Harrison, J.S., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2012; Volume 2, pp. 131–164. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hodgson, V.J.; Button, D.; Walker, G.M. Anti-candida activity of a novel killer toxin from the yeast Williopsis mrakii. Microbiology 1995, 141, 2003–2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Magliani, W.; Conti, S.; Gerloni, M.; Bertolotti, D.; Polonelli, L. Yeast killer systems. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 1997, 10, 369–400. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  41. Chen, W.B.; Han, Y.F.; Jong, S.C.; Chang, S.C. Isolation, purification, and characterization of a killer protein from Schwanniomyces occidentalis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000, 66, 5348–5352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Schmitt, M.J.; Breinig, F. The viral killer system in yeast: From molecular biology to application. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2002, 26, 257–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Golubev, W.I.; Pfeiffer, I.; Golub, E.W. Mycocin production in Pseudozyma tsukubaensis. Mycopathologia 2006, 162, 313–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Muccilli, S.; Wemhoff, S.; Restuccia, C.; Meinhardt, F. Exoglucanase-encoding genes from three Wickerhamomyces anomalus killer strains isolated from olive brine. Yeast 2013, 30, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Wickner, R.B. Double-stranded RNA viruses of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiol. Rev. 1996, 60, 250–265. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  46. Weiler, F.; Rehfeldt, K.; Bautz, F.; Schmitt, M.J. The Zygosaccharomyces bailii antifungal virus toxin zygocin: Cloning and expression in a heterologous fungal host. Mol. Microbiol. 2002, 46, 1095–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Gunge, N.; Tamaru, A.; Ozawa, F.; Sakaguchi, K. Isolation and characterization of linear deoxyribonucleic acid plasmids from Kluyveromyces lactis and the plasmid—Associated killer character. Yeast 1981, 145, 382–390. [Google Scholar]
  48. Hayman, G.T.; Bolen, P.L. Linear DNA plasmids of Pichia inositovora are associated with a novel killer toxin activity. Curr. Genet. 1991, 19, 389–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Kimura, T.; Kitamoto, N.; Matsuoka, K.; Nakamura, K.; Iimura, Y.; Kito, Y. Isolation and nucleotide sequences of the genes encoding killer toxins from Hansenula mrakii and H. saturnus. Gene 1993, 137, 265–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Muccilli, S.; Wemhoff, S.; Restuccia, C.; Meinhardt, F. Molecular genetics of Pichia anomala killer strains isolated from naturally fermented olive brine. J. Biotechnol. 2010, 150, 302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. İzgü, F.; Altinbay, D. Isolation and characterization of the K5-type yeast killer protein and its homology with an exo-β-1,3-glucanase. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2004, 68, 685–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Marquina, D.; Santos, A.; Peinado, J.M. Biology of killer yeasts. Int. Microbiol. 2002, 5, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Wang, X.H.; Chi, Z.M.; Yue, L.; Li, J. Purification and characterization of killer toxin from a marine yeast Pichia anomala YF07b against the Pathogenic yeast in crab. Curr. Microbiol. 2007, 55, 396–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Comitini, F.; Mannazzu, I.; Ciani, M. Tetrapisispora phaffii killer toxin is a highly specific β-glucanase that disrupts the integrity of the yeast cell wall. Microb. Cell Fact. 2009, 8, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Klassen, R.; Meinhardt, F. Linear plasmids pWR1A and pWR1B of the yeast Wingea robertsiae are associated with a killer phenotype. Plasmid 2002, 48, 142–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Klassen, R.; Meinhardt, F. Induction of DNA damage and apoptosis in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by a yeast killer toxin. Cell Microbiol. 2005, 7, 393–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Klassen, R.; Paluszynski, J.P.; Wemhoff, S.; Pfeiffer, A.; Fricke, J.; Meinhardt, F. The primary target of the killer toxin from Pichia acaciae is tRNAGln. Mol. Microbiol. 2008, 69, 681–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Brown, D.W. The KP4 killer protein gene family. Curr. Genet. 2011, 57, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Ahmed, A.; Sesti, F.; Ilan, N.; Shih, T.M.; Sturley, S.L.; Goldstein, S.A. A molecular target for viral killer toxin: TOK1 potassium channels. Cell 1999, 99, 283–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Santos, A.; Mauro, M.S.; Abrusci, C.; Marquina, D. Cwp2p, the plasma membrane receptor for Pichia membranifaciens killer toxin. Mol. Microbiol. 2007, 64, 831–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Hayduck, F. Uber einen Hefengiftstoff in Hefe. Wochenschr. Brau. 1909, 26, 677–679. (In German) [Google Scholar]
  62. Viljoen, B.C. Yeast ecological interactions: Yeast–yeast, yeast–bacteria, yeast–fungi interactions and yeast as biocontrol agents. In The Yeast Handbook: Yeasts in Food and Beverages; Querol, A., Fleet, G., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2006; pp. 83–110. [Google Scholar]
  63. Fatichenti, F.; Bergere, J.L.; Deiana, P.; Farris, G.A. Antagonistic activity of Debaryomyces hansenii towards Clostridium tyrobutyricum and C. butyricum. J. Dairy Res. 1983, 50, 449–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Bilinski, C.A.; Innamorato, G.; Stewart, G.G. Identification and characterization of antimicrobial activity in two yeast Genera. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1985, 50, 1330–1332. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  65. Polonelli, L.; Morace, G. Reevaluation of the yeast killer phenomenon. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1986, 24, 866–869. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  66. Dieuleveux, V.; van der Pyl, D.; Chataud, J.; Gueguen, M. Purification and characterization of anti-Listeria compounds produced by Geotrichum candidum. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1998, 64, 800–803. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  67. Cavalero, D.A.; Cooper, D.G. The effect of medium composition on the structure and physical state of sophorolipids produced by Candida bombicola ATCC22214. J. Biotechnol. 2003, 103, 31–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Shah, V.; Badia, D.; Ratsup, P. Sophorolipids having enhanced antibacterial activity. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2007, 51, 397–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Goerges, S.; Aigner, U.; Silakowski, B.; Scherer, S. Inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes by food-borne yeasts. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 313–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Goerges, S.; Koslowsky, M.; Velagic, S.; Borst, N.; Bockelmann, W.; Heller, K.J.; Scherer, S. Anti-listerial potential of food-borne yeasts in red smear cheese. Int. Dairy J. 2011, 21, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Hatoum, R.; Labrie, S.; Fliss, I. Identification and partial characterization of antilisterial compounds produced by dairy yeasts. Probiotics Antimicro. Prot. 2013, 5, 8–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chen, Y.; Aorigele, C.; Wang, C.; Simujide, H.; Yang, S. Screening and extracting mycocin secreted by yeast isolated from koumiss and their antibacterial effect. J. Food Nutr. Res. 2015, 3, 52–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. França, R.C.; Conceição, F.R.; Mendonça, M.; Haubert, L.; Sabadin, G.; de Oliveira, P.D.; Amaral, M.G.; Silva, W.P.; Moreira, Â.N. Pichia pastoris X-33 has probiotic properties with remarkable antibacterial activity against Salmonella typhimurium. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 99, 7953–7961. [Google Scholar]
  74. Du Toit, M.; Pretorius, I.S. Microbial spoilage and preservation of wine: Using weapons from nature’s own arsenal—A review. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 2000, 21, 74–96. [Google Scholar]
  75. Romano, P.; Capece, A.; Jespersen, L. Taxonomic and ecological diversity of food and beverage yeasts. In The Yeast Handbook: Yeasts in Food and Beverages; Querol, A., Fleet, G., Eds.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 2006; pp. 13–53. [Google Scholar]
  76. Sperber, W.H.; Doyle, M.P. Compendium of the Microbiological Spoilage of Foods and Beverages; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  77. Pretorius, I.S. Tailoring wine yeast for the new millennium: Novel approaches to the ancient art of winemaking. Yeast 2000, 16, 675–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Hara, S.; Iimura, Y.; Otsuka, K. Breeding of useful killer wine yeasts. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1980, 31, 28–33. [Google Scholar]
  79. Pfeiffer, P.; Radler, F. Comparison of the killer toxin of several yeasts and the purification of a toxin of type K2. Arch. Microbiol. 1984, 137, 357–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Boone, C.; Sdicu, A.M.; Wagner, J.; Degre, R.; Sanchez, C.; Bussey, H. Integration of the yeast K1 killer toxin gene into the genome of marked wine yeasts and its effect on vinification. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1990, 41, 7–42. [Google Scholar]
  81. Comitini, F.; de Ingeniis, J.; Pepe, L.; Mannazzu, I.; Ciani, M. Pichia anomala and Kluyveromyces wickerhamii killer toxins as new tools against Dekkera/Brettanomyces spoilage yeasts. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2004, 238, 235–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Seki, T.; Choi, E.H.; Ryu, D. Construction of killer wine yeast strain. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1985, 49, 1211–1215. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  83. Cocolin, L.; Comi, G. Killer yeasts in winemaking. In Hand Book of Enology: Principles, Practices and Recent Innovation; Joshi, V.K., Ed.; Asiatech Publishers Inc.: Delhi, India, 2011; pp. 564–590. [Google Scholar]
  84. Todd, B.E.; Fleet, G.H.; Henschke, P.A. Promotion of autolysis through the interaction of killer and sensitive yeasts: Potential application in sparkling wine production. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2000, 51, 65–72. [Google Scholar]
  85. Van Vuuren, H.J.J.; Jacobs, C.J. Killer yeasts in the wine industry: A review. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1992, 43, 119–128. [Google Scholar]
  86. Maqueda, M.; Zamora, E.; Álvarez, M.L.; Ramírez, M. Characterization, ecological distribution, and population dynamics of Saccharomyces sensu stricto killer yeasts in the spontaneous grape must fermentations of southwestern Spain. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 735–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Comitini, F.; Ciani, M. The zymocidial activity of Tetrapisispora phaffii in the control of Hanseniaspora uvarum during the early stages of winemaking. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 50, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Oro, L.; Zara, S.; Fancellu, F.; Mannazzu, I.; Budroni, M.; Ciani, M.; Comitini, F. TpBGL2 codes for a Tetrapisispora phaffii killer toxin active against wine spoilage yeasts. FEMS Yeast Res. 2014, 14, 464–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Comitini, F.; Ciani, M. Kluyveromyces wickerhamii killer toxin: Purification and activity towards Brettanomyces/Dekkera yeasts in grape must. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2011, 316, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. De Ullivarri, M.F.; Mendoza, L.M.; Raya, R.R. Killer yeasts as biocontrol agents of spoilage yeasts and bacteria isolated from wine. In Proceedings of 37th World Congress of Vine Wine, Mendoza, Argentina, 9–14 November 2014.
  91. Ibeas, J.I.; Lozano, I.; Perdigones, F.; Jimenez, J. Detection of Dekkera-Brettanomyces strains in sherry by a nested PCR method. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1996, 62, 998–1003. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  92. İzgü, F.; Altınbay, D.; Acun, T. Killer toxin of Pichia anomala NCYC 432; purification, characterization and its exo-β-1, 3-glucanase activity. Enzyme Microb. Technol. 2006, 39, 669–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Lowes, K.F.; Shearman, C.A.; Payne, J.; MacKenzie, D.; Archer, D.B.; Merry, R.J.; Gasson, M.J. Prevention of yeast spoilage in feed and food by the yeast mycocin HMK. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000, 66, 1066–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Mehlomakulu, N.N.; Setati, M.E.; Divol, B. Characterization of novel killer toxins secreted by wine-related non-Saccharomyces yeasts and their action on Brettanomyces spp. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2014, 188, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Santos, A.; Navascués, E.; Bravo, E.; Marquina, D. Ustilago maydis killer toxin as a new tool for the biocontrol of the wine spoilage yeast Brettanomyces bruxellensis. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2011, 145, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Alexandre, H.; Costello, P.J.; Remize, F.; Guzzo, J.; Guilloux-Benatier, M. Saccharomyces cerevisiaeOenococcus oeni interactions in wine: Current knowledge and perspectives. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004, 93, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Young, T.W. The genetic manipulation of killer character into brewing yeast. J. Inst. Brew. 1981, 87, 292–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Yoshiuchi, K.; Watanabe, M.; Nishimura, A. Breeding of a non-urea producing sake yeast with killer character using a kar1-1 mutant as a killer donor. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2000, 24, 203–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Llorente, P.; Marquina, D.; Santos, A.; Peinado, J.M.; Spencer-Martins, I. Effect of salt on the killer phenotype of yeasts from olive brines. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1997, 63, 1165–1167. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  100. Asehraou, A.; Peres, C.; Brito, D.; Faid, M.; Serhrouchni, M. Characterization of yeast strains isolated from bloaters of fermented green table olives during storage. Grasas Aceites 2007, 51, 225–229. [Google Scholar]
  101. Marquina, D.; Peres, C.; Caldas, F.V.; Marques, J.F.; Peinado, J.M.; Spencer-Martins, I. Characterization of the yeast population in olive brines. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 1992, 14, 279–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Nisiotou, A.A.; Chorianopoulos, N.; Nychas, G.J.; Panagou, E.Z. Yeast heterogeneity during spontaneous fermentation of black Conservolea olives in different brine solutions. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 108, 396–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Suzuki, C.; Yamada, K.; Okada, N.; Nikkuni, S. Isolation and characterization of halotolerant killer yeasts from fermented foods. Agric. Biol. Chem. 1989, 53, 2596–2397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Kagan, B.L. Mode of action of yeast killer toxins: Channel formation in lipid bilayer membranes. Nature 1983, 302, 709–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Bortol, A.; Nudel, C.; Fraile, E.; de Torres, R.; Giulietti, A.; Spencer, J.F.T.; Spencer, D. Isolation of yeast with killer activity and its breeding with an industrial baking strain by protoplast fusion. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 1986, 24, 414–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Pérez-Nevado, F.; Córdoba Ramos, M.G.; Aranda Medina, E.; Martín González, A.; Andrade, M.J.; Córdoba Ramos, J.J. Killer activity of yeasts isolated from spanish dry-cured ham. In Modern Multidisciplinary Applied Microbiology: Exploiting Microbes and Their Interactions; Mendez-Vilas, A., Ed.; Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Weinheim, Germany, 2006; pp. 232–235. [Google Scholar]
  107. Virgili, R.; Simoncini, N.; Toscani, T.; Camardo Leggieri, M.; Formenti, S.; Battilani, P. Biocontrol of Penicillium nordicum growth and ochratoxin A production by native yeasts of dry cured ham. Toxins 2012, 4, 68–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Liu, S.Q.; Tsao, M. Enhancement of survival of probiotic and non-probiotic lactic acid bacteria by yeasts in fermented milk under non-refrigerated conditions. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2009, 135, 34–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Jakobsen, M.; Narvhus, J. Yeasts and their possible beneficial and negative effects on the quality of dairy products. Int. Dairy J. 1996, 6, 755–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Liu, S.Q.; Tsao, M. Biocontrol of dairy moulds by antagonistic dairy yeast Debaryomyces hansenii in yoghurt and cheese at elevated temperatures. Food Control 2009, 20, 852–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Liu, S.Q.; Tsao, M. Inhibition of spoilage yeasts in cheese by killer yeast Williopsis saturnus var. saturnus. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2009, 131, 280–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Liu, S.Q.; Tsao, M. Enhancing stability of lactic acid bacteria and probiotics by Williopsis saturnus var. saturnus in fermented milks. Nutr. Food Sci. 2010, 40, 314–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Liu, S.Q.; Tsao, M. Biocontrol of spoilage yeasts and moulds by Williopsis saturnus var. saturnus in yoghurt. Nutr. Food Sci. 2010, 40, 166–175. [Google Scholar]
  114. Palpacelli, V.; Ciani, M.; Rosini, G. Activity of different “killer” yeasts on strains of yeast species undesirable in the food industry. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1991, 84, 75–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Reed, G.; Nagodawithana, T.W. Wine yeasts. In Yeast Technology; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1990; pp. 151–224. [Google Scholar]
  116. Baeza, M.E.; Sanhueza, M.A.; Cifuentes, V.H. Occurrence of killer yeast strains in industrial and clinical yeast isolates. Biol. Res. 2008, 41, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Hara, S.; Iimura, Y.; Oyama, H.; Kozeki, T.; Kitano, K.; Otsuka, K. I. The breeding of cryophilic killer wine yeasts. Agric. Biol. Chem. 1980, 45, 1327–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Ciani, M.; Fatichenti, F. Killer toxin of Kluyveromyces phaffii DBVPG 6076 as a biopreservative agent to control apiculate wine yeasts. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2001, 67, 3058–3063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Da Silva, S.; Calado, S.; Lucas, C.; Aguiar, C. Unusual properties of the halotolerant yeast Candida nodaensis Killer toxin, CnKT. Microbiol. Res. 2008, 163, 243–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Spadaro, D.; Gullino, M.L. State of the art and future prospects of the biological control of postharvest fruit diseases. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004, 91, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Conway, W.S.; Leverentz, B.; Janisiewicz, W.J.; Blodgett, A.B.; Saftner, R.A.; Camp, M.J. Integrating heat treatment, biocontrol and sodium bicarbonate to reduce postharvest decay of apple caused by Colletotrichum acutatum and Penicillium expansum. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2004, 34, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Ullivarri, M.F.; Mendoza, L.M.; Raya, R.R. Killer activity of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains: Partial characterization and strategies to improve the biocontrol efficacy in winemaking. Antonie van Leeuwen. 2014, 106, 865–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Platania, C.; Restuccia, C.; Muccilli, S.; Cirvilleri, G. Efficacy of killer yeasts in the biological control of Penicillium digitatum on Tarocco orange fruits (Citrus sinensis). Food Microbiol. 2012, 30, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Schena, L.; Ippolito, A.; Zahavi, T.; Cohen, L.; Droby, S. Molecular approaches to assist the screening and monitoring of postharvest biocontrol yeasts. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2000, 106, 681–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Janisiewicz, W.J.; Tworkoski, T.J.; Kurtzman, C.P. Biocontrol potential of Metchnikowia pulcherrima strains against blue mold of apple. Phytopathology 2011, 91, 1098–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Spadaro, D.; Vola, R.; Piano, S.; Gullino, M.L. Mechanisms of action and efficacy of four isolates of the yeast Metschnikowia pulcherrima active against postharvest pathogens on apples. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2002, 24, 123–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Zhang, D.; Spadaro, D.; Garibaldi, A.; Gullino, M.L. Efficacy of the antagonist Aureobasidium pullulans PL5 against postharvest pathogens of peach, apple and plum and its modes of action. Biol. Control 2010, 54, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Lima, G.; Castoria, R.; de Curtis, F.; Raiola, A.; Ritieni, A.; de Cicco, V. Integrated control of blue mould using new fungicides and biocontrol yeasts lowers levels of fungicide residues and patulin contamination in apples. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2011, 60, 164–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Oro, L.; Feliziani, E.; Ciani, M.; Romanazzi, G.; Comitin, F. Biocontrol of postharvest brown rot of sweet cherries by Saccharomyces cerevisiae Disva 599, Metschnikowia pulcherrima Disva 267 and Wickerhamomyces anomalus Disva 2 strains. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2014, 96, 64–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Castoria, R.; de Curtis, F.; Lima, G.; Caputo, L.; Pacifico, S.; de Cicco, V. Aureobasidium pullulans (LS-30) an antagonist of postharvest pathogens of fruits: study on its modes of action. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2001, 22, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Zhang, D.; Spadaro, D.; Valente, S.; Garibaldi, A.; Gullino, M.L. Cloning, characterization, expression and antifungal activity of an alkaline serine protease of Aureobasidium pullulans PL5 involved in the biological control of postharvest pathogens. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012, 153, 453–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Lima, G.; Ippolito, A.; Nigro, F.; Salerno, M. Effectiveness of Aureobasidium pullulans and Candida oleophila against postharvest strawberry rots. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 1997, 10, 169–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Ippolito, A.; El Ghaouth, A.; Wilson, C.L.; Wisniewski, M. Control of postharvest decay of apple fruit by Aureobasidium pullulans and induction of defense responses. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2011, 19, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Fredlund, E.; Blank, L.M.; Schnürer, J.; Sauer, U.; Passoth, V. Oxygen- and glucose-dependent regulation of central carbon metabolism in Pichia anomala. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004, 70, 5905–5591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Druvefors, U.Ä.; Passoth, V.; Schnürer, J. Nutrient effects on biocontrol of Penicillium roqueforti by Pichia anomala J121 during airtight storage of wheat. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 1865–1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Hua, S.S.T.; Beck, J.J.; Sarreal, S.B.L.; Gee, W. The major volatile compound 2-phenylethanol from the biocontrol yeast, Pichia anomala, inhibits growth and expression of aflatoxin biosynthetic genes of Aspergillus flavus. Mycotoxin Res. 2014, 30, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Fiori, S.; Urgeghe, P.P.; Hammami, W.; Razzu, S.; Jaoua, S.; Migheli, Q. Biocontrol activity of four non- and low-fermenting yeast strains against Aspergillus carbonarius and their ability to remove ochratoxin A from grape juice. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2014, 189, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Rosa-Magri, M.M.; Tauk-Tornisielo, S.M.; Ceccato-Antonini, S.R. Bioprospection of yeasts as biocontrol agents against phytopathogenic molds. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2011, 54, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Zhang, D.; Spadaro, D.; Garibaldi, A.; Gullino, M.L. Potential biocontrol activity of a strain of Pichia guilliermondii against grey mold of apples and its possible modes of action. Biol. Control 2011, 57, 193–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Ragazzo-Sánchez, J.A.; Magallón-Andalón, C.G.; Luna-Solano, G.; Calderón-Santoyo, M. Parasitism and substrate competitions effect of antagonistic yeasts for biocontrol of Colletotrichum gloeosporioides in papaya (Carica papaya L.) var. Maradol. Mex. J. Sci. Res. 2012, 1, 2–9. [Google Scholar]
  141. Björnberg, A.; Schnürer, J. Inhibition of the growth of grain-storage molds in vitro by the yeast Pichia anomala (Hansen) Kurtzman. Can. J. Microbiol. 1993, 39, 623–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Jijakli, M.H.; Lepoivre, P. Characterization of an exo-β-1,3-glucanase produced by Pichia anomala strain K, antagonist of Botrytis cinerea on apples. Phytopathology 1998, 88, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Masih, E.I.; Alie, I.; Paul, B. Can the grey mould disease of the grape-vine be controlled by yeast? FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2000, 189, 233–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Mohamed, H.; Saad, A. The biocontrol of postharvest disease (Botryodiplodia threobromae) of guava (Psidum guajava L.) by the application of yeast strains. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2009, 53, 123–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Druvefors, Ä.U.; Schnürer, J. Mold-inhibitory activity of different yeast species during airtight storage of wheat grain. FEMS Yeast Res. 2005, 5, 373–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Olstorpe, M.; Borling, J.; Schnürer, J.; Passoth, V. Pichia anomala yeast improves feed hygiene during storage of moist crimped barley grain under Swedish farm conditions. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2010, 156, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Friel, D.; Pessoa, N.M.G.; Vandenbol, M.; Jijakli, M.H. Separate and combined disruptions of two exo-β-1,3-glucanase genes decrease the efficiency of Pichia anomala (strain K) biocontrol against Botrytis cinerea on apple. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2007, 20, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Haïssam, J.M. Pichia anomala in biocontrol for apples: 20 Years of fundamental research and practical applications. Antonie Van Leeuwen. 2011, 99, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Aloui, H.; Licciardello, F.; Khwaldia, K.; Hamdi, M.; Restuccia, C. Physical properties and antifungal activity of bioactive films containing Wickerhamomyces anomalus killer yeast and their application for preservation of oranges and control of postharvest green mold caused by Penicillium digitatum. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2015, 200, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Lima, J.R.; Gondim, D.M.F.; Oliveira, J.T.A.; Oliveira, F.S.A.; Gonçalves, L.R.B.; Viana, F.M.P. Use of killer yeast in the management of postharvest papaya anthracnose. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2013, 83, 58–64. [Google Scholar]
  151. Polonelli, L.; Lorenzini, R.; de Bernardis, F.; Morace, G. Potential therapeutic effect of yeast killer toxin. Mycopathologia 1986, 96, 103–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Yamamoto, T.; Uchida, K.; Hiratani, T.; Miyazaki, T.; Yagiu, J.; Yamaguchi, H. In vitro activity of the killer toxin from yeast Hansenula mrakii against yeasts and molds. J. Antib. 1988, 41, 398–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Walker, G.M.; Mcleod, A.H.; Hodgson, V.J. Interactions between killer yeasts and pathogenic fungi. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1995, 127, 213–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Séguy, N.; Polonelli, L.; Dei-Cas, E.; Cailliez, J.C. Effect of a killer toxin of Pichia anomala to Pneumocystis. Perspectives in the control of pneumocystosis. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 1998, 22, 145–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Conti, S.; Magliani, W.; Arseni, S.; Frazzi, R.; Salati, A.; Ravanetti, L.; Polonelli, L. Inhibition by yeast killer toxin-like antibodies of oral Streptococci adhesion to tooth surfaces in an ex vivo model. Mol. Med. 2002, 8, 313–317. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  156. İzgü, F.; Altınbay, D.; Türeli, A.E. In vitro susceptibilities of Candida spp. to Panomycocin, a novel exo-β-1,3-glucanase isolated from Pichia anomala NCYC 434. Microbiol. Immunol. 2007, 51, 797–803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Weiler, F.; Schmitt, M.J. Zygocin, a secreted antifungal toxin of the yeast Zygosaccharomyces bailii, and its effect on sensitive fungal cells. FEMS Yeast Res. 2003, 3, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Bajaj, B.K.; Raina, S.; Singh, S. Killer toxin from a novel killer yeast Pichia kudriavzevii RY55 with idiosyncratic antibacterial activity. J. Basic Microb. 2013, 53, 645–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Magliani, W.; Conti, S.; Salati, A.; Vaccari, S.; Ravanetti, L.; Maffei, D.L.; Polonelli, L. Therapeutic potential of yeast killer toxin-like antibodies and mimotopes. FEMS Yeast Res. 2004, 5, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Cappelli, A.; Ulissi, U.; Valzano, M.; Damiani, C.; Epis, S.; Gabrielli, M.G.; Conti, S.; Polonelli, L.; Bandi, C.; Favia, G.; et al. Wickerhamomyces anomalus killer strain in the malaria vector Anopheles stephensi. PloS ONE 2014, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Polonelli, L.; Morace, G. Yeast killer toxin-like anti-idiotypic antibodies. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1988, 26, 602–604. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  162. Polonelli, L.; Conti, S.; Gerloni, M.; Magliani, W.; Castagnola, M.; Morace, G.; Chezzi, C. “Antibiobodies”: Antibiotic-like anti-idiotypic antibodies. Med. Mycol. 1991, 29, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Polonelli, L.; Beninati, C.; Teti, G.; Felici, F.; Ciociola, T.; Giovati, L.; Sperindè, M.; Lo Passo, C.; Pernice, I.; Domina, M.; et al. Yeast killer toxin-like candidacidal Ab6 antibodies elicited through the manipulation of the idiotypic cascade. PLoS ONE, 2014, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Cenci, E.; Bistoni, F.; Mencacci, A.; Perito, S.; Magliani, W.; Conti, S.; Polonelli, L.; Vecchiarelli, A. A synthetic peptide as a novel anticryptococcal agent. Cell Microbiol. 2004, 6, 953–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Travassos, L.R.; Silva, L.S.; Rodrigues, E.G.; Conti, S.; Salati, A.; Magliani, W.; Polonelli, L. Therapeutic activity of a killer peptide against experimental paracoccidioidomycosis. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2004, 54, 956–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Cafarchia, C.; Immediato, D.; Paola, G.D.; Magliani, W.; Ciociola, T.; Conti, S.; Otranto, D.; Polonelli, L. In vitro and in vivo activity of a killer peptide against Malassezia pachydermatis causing otitis in dogs. Med. Mycol. 2014, 52, 350–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Selvakumar, D.; Miyamoto, M.; Furuichi, Y.; Komiyama, T. Inhibition of fungal β-1,3-glucan synthase and cell growth by HM-1 killer toxin single-chain anti-idiotypic antibodies. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2006, 50, 3090–3097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Kabir, M.E.; Karim, N.; Krishnaswamy, S.; Selvakumar, D.; Miyamoto, M.; Furuichi, Y.; Komiyama, T. Peptide derived from anti-idiotypic single-chain antibody is a potent antifungal agent compared to its parent fungicide HM-1 killer toxin peptide. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2011, 92, 1151–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Krishnaswamy, S.; Kabir, M.E.; Miyamoto, M.; Furuichi, Y.; Komiyama, T. Cloning antifungal single chain fragment variable antibodies by phage display and competitive panning elution. Anal. Biochem. 2009, 395, 16–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  170. Kabir, M.E.; Krishnaswamy, S.; Miyamoto, M.; Furuichi, Y.; Komiyama, T. An improved phage-display panning method to produce an HM-1 killer toxin anti-idiotypic antibody. BMC Biotechnol. 2009, 9, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Podoliankaitė, M.; Lukša, J.; Vyšniauskis, G.; Sereikaitė, J.; Melvydas, V.; Serva, S.; Servienė, E. High-yield expression in Escherichia coli, purification and application of budding yeast K2 killer protein. Mol. Biotechnol. 2014, 56, 644–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. Ciociola, T.; Magliani, W.; Giovati, L.; Sperindè, M.; Santinoli, C.; Conti, G.; Conti, S.; Polonelli, L. Antibodies as an unlimited source of anti-infective, anti-tumour and immunomodulatory peptides. Sci. Prog. 2014, 97, 215–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Muccilli, S.; Restuccia, C. Bioprotective Role of Yeasts. Microorganisms 2015, 3, 588-611. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/microorganisms3040588

AMA Style

Muccilli S, Restuccia C. Bioprotective Role of Yeasts. Microorganisms. 2015; 3(4):588-611. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/microorganisms3040588

Chicago/Turabian Style

Muccilli, Serena, and Cristina Restuccia. 2015. "Bioprotective Role of Yeasts" Microorganisms 3, no. 4: 588-611. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/microorganisms3040588

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop