Next Article in Journal
Ethnomycological Investigation in Serbia: Astonishing Realm of Mycomedicines and Mycofood
Next Article in Special Issue
Biocontrol Agents: Toolbox for the Screening of Weapons against Mycotoxigenic Fusarium
Previous Article in Journal
Breakthrough Invasive Fungal Infections in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Investigation of the Antifungal and Anti-Aflatoxigenic Potential of Plant-Based Essential Oils against Aspergillus flavus in Peanuts
 
 
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Mycotoxins Biocontrol Methods for Healthier Crops and Stored Products

1
Faculty of Food Technology, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, 31000 Osijek, Croatia
2
Agricultural Institute Osijek, Južno predgrađe 17, 31000 Osijek, Croatia
3
Faculty of Agrobiotechnical Sciences Osijek, Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Vladimira Preloga 1, 31000 Osijek, Croatia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Fungi 2021, 7(5), 348; https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7050348
Received: 2 April 2021 / Revised: 23 April 2021 / Accepted: 27 April 2021 / Published: 29 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Different Antimycotoxin Strategies)

Abstract

:
Contamination of crops with phytopathogenic genera such as Fusarium, Aspergillus, Alternaria, and Penicillium usually results in mycotoxins in the stored crops or the final products (bread, beer, etc.). To reduce the damage and suppress the fungal growth, it is common to add antifungal substances during growth in the field or storage. Many of these antifungal substances are also harmful to human health and the reduction of their concentration would be of immense importance to food safety. Many eminent researchers are seeking a way to reduce the use of synthetic antifungal compounds and to implement more eco-friendly and healthier bioweapons against fungal proliferation and mycotoxin synthesis. This paper aims to address the recent advances in the effectiveness of biological antifungal compounds application against the aforementioned fungal genera and their species to enhance the protection of ecological and environmental systems involved in crop growing (water, soil, air) and to reduce fungicide contamination of food derived from these commodities.

1. Introduction

Today’s agriculture relies on different agents to improve the health, yield, and nutritive value of crops. Small grain cereals (such as wheat, barley, oat, rye, and triticale) and maize are the main commodities grown all over the world in different climatic conditions. Areas affected by drought, humid areas, and high altitude areas can deliver favorable conditions to the population of pathogen fungi. Because of the wide spectrum of climatic conditions, cereals and maize can be contaminated with different pathogens resulting in mycotoxins. The application of chemicals may result in a reduction of fungal infection or mycotoxin contamination, but the sustainability of such application regarding ecological and environmental issues is not promising. Current trends question the safety of chemical agents used for the preservation of crops [1], as they are considered responsible for many carcinogenic and teratogenic toxic effects in humans and animals [2,3]. Natural and biological weapons applicable in the reduction of mycotoxigenic fungi and mycotoxins have been intensely investigated for many years. Not only the producers, but the consumers of cereal-based foods as well, are seeking natural ways to protect crops and to reduce the amount of fungicides in final products [4].
Global warming and climatic changes reshape the microbiome of cereals and maize in all corners of the world. Shifts in fungal species have already been reported by several authors across the globe [5,6,7,8,9]. Several Fusarium species are affected by rising temperatures, and not only in European countries. This became a serious marker for climatic changes follow-up and can be considered as an indicator of global warming. Shifts in fungal species and their adaptation to stressful conditions, such as drought and warmer temperatures, subsequently result in changes in secondary metabolites, mycotoxins, and plant defense metabolites that can be detected and quantified in small cereals and maize [10]. This challenges the possibilities of fungicide reduction. Namely, harsher environmental conditions intensify the production of different fungal and plant metabolites which calls for increased use of fungicide agents. However, the committed efforts of scholars are currently aimed toward the development of biological and natural agents that can be employed not only for the protection of crops from fungal infections, but to reduce the environmental damage to ecological systems where these crops are grown.
The aim of this paper is to give an overview of recent reports on the application of biological antifungal compounds against Fusarium, Aspergillus, Alternaria, and Penicillium fungal species which would enhance the protection, not only of the plant itself, but of ecological and environmental systems involved in crop growing (water, soil, air) as well.

2. Mycotoxinogenic Fungi and Affected Grains

The most familiar fungal species that are related to mycotoxin contamination of maize and cereals belong to genera Fusarium, Aspergillus, Alternaria, and Penicillium [11]. Table 1 shows most common commodities, fungi, and mycotoxins worldwide. A more detailed overview of fungal species and their mycotoxins is given in the following sections.

2.1. Fusarium Spp.

2.1.1. Species Description

Fusarium spp. are designated as the most devastating species for small grain cereals, especially for wheat and barley, causing Fusarium head blight (FHB) [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. Oats are generally less affected by Fusarium spp. than other cereals [21,22,23], but some regions (Scandinavia and Canada) encounter a serious problem with oat panicle blight [21,24]. Favorable conditions for head infections caused by Fusarium spp. include high humidity and temperatures above 20 °C [14,25,26,27]. According to Miller [28], F. graminearum is associated with wheat and maize grown in warmer areas, and F. culmorum with colder areas such as northwestern Europe, and the influence of temperature correlates with a prolonged period of warm weather with daytime temperatures above 30 °C. Even though several fungal species are related to head blight, F. graminearum, F. culmorum, and F. avenaceum are found to be dominant species in most parts of the world [19,27,29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. A significant increase in FHB caused by F. poae has been recorded for the last few years. It does not cause classical fusariosis-like symptoms (significant damage to kernel germination capacity), but still produces mycotoxins [34,36,37,38]. Other species can also be related to the pathogenesis of small cereals: Fusarium sporotrichioides, Fusarium crookwellense, Fusarium roseum, Fusarium equiseti, Fusarium tricinctum, Fusarium oxysporum, and Fusarium langsethiae, Fusarium acuminatum, Fusarium fujikuroi, and Fusarium incarnatum [23,27,39,40,41,42,43,44].
According to several sources [45,46,47], Fusarium verticillioides is a common fungal species that infects maize. The infection can occur via several routes. Often, the kernel gets infected through airborne conidia that can be found on the silks [48,49,50]. Usually, a small percentage of the infected kernels display symptoms of infection [51]. Another proposed infection pathway is systemically through the seed [52]. Systemic infection can start from fungal conidia or mycelia, inside the seeds, or on the seed surface. In this case, the fungus thrives inside the young plant, moves up from the roots to the stalk, and ends up in the cob and kernels. F. verticillioides is known to produce toxins that are potentially toxic to humans and animals. The most significant of these toxins produced by F. verticillioides are the fumonisins [46,49,53]. Fumonisins can be detected in symptomatic and asymptomatic maize kernels, and therefore the control of fumonisin contamination in maize has become a priority area in food safety research with distinct limits for maximum fumonisin levels in human food and animal feeds [54,55].
As reported by Oldenburg et al. [56], Fusarium species infecting European maize mostly belong to the sections Discolour and Liseola. Discolour prevails in colder and more humid areas and Liseola prefers a warmer and dryer climate. As in most grains, several Fusarium spp. can be detected on maize which can result in multi-contamination with mycotoxins.

2.1.2. Disease and Mycotoxin Producton

Fusarium spp. can also affect maize with two diseases described as “red ear rot” or Gibberella ear rot (F. graminearum, F. culmorum, F. avenaceum, F. cerealis, F. poae, F. equiseti, and F. sporotrichioides), and “pink ear rot” or Fusarium ear rot, (F. fujikuroi) which takes place after pollination and is common in hot and dry climatic conditions [56,57,58,59].

2.1.3. Gibberella Ear Rot

Gibberella ear rot starts at the ear tip after entry of the fungi through the silks at female flowering [60,61]. The infection results in a grey-brownish to pink-reddish coloration of the infected parts of the rachis. The coloration usually indicates places where mycotoxins accumulate. Earlier ear tissue infection results in higher mycotoxin concentrations. Higher mycotoxin concentrations can be found at the ear tip if the infection occurred via the silks [62]. According to Oldenburg and Ellner [62], harvested kernels placed at the tip segment of maize ears, if the inoculation with F. culmorum or F. graminearum occurred during the flowering period, can contain DON, 3-a-DON, and ZEN. In comparison, rachis parts showed several times higher levels of the same mycotoxins (DAS, T2, and HT2 can be detected less often and in much lower concentrations) [34,63,64].

2.1.4. Fusarium Ear Rot

According to several sources [65,66,67], F. temperatum, can also be designated as a causative agent of ear rot in maize. Infection occurs more often through damaged tissue than through silks [68,69]. F. verticillioides causes tan to brown coloration, white or light pink mycelium on kernels, limited ear areas, or groups of kernels scattered over the ear [70]. Kernels can be infected with F. verticillioides, but show no visible symptoms of infection [62]. Common mycotoxins produced by F. verticillioides and F. proliferatum in maize ears are fumonisins (FB1 to FB4) [71,72,73]. FB1 synthesis in maize kernels correlates to the content of water, amylase, and starch [74]. FB1 accumulation in immature F. verticillioides-infected kernels was not observed due to the lack of starch [75]. Bluhm and Woloshuk [75] described amylopectin as a triggering substance to induce FB1 production. Higher FB1 concentrations were observed in kernels that suffered dual infection with F. verticillioides and F. proliferatum [76]. However, F. verticillioides produces significantly higher levels of FB1 than F. proliferatum [77]. Infections involving several other Fusarium species, F. subglutinans, F. avenaceum, or F. equiseti, commonly result in different concentrations of MON (moniliformin), BEA (beauvericin), ENNs (enniantins), and/or other mycotoxins [34,64,78,79,80,81,82].
Fusarium spp. also cause seedling diseases such as seed rot, root rot, or seedling blight of maize [83]. Common causes of seedling diseases are F. verticillioides, F. proliferatum, F. subglutinans, F. graminearum, F. oxysporum, and F. temperatum [84,85]. Low-quality seeds and seeds that withstood significant damage by insects or physical damage are especially susceptible to soil- and seed-borne pathogens. Seedling blight can be recognized by the brown coloration of the dead seedlings or by light-yellowish coloring and seeds that have lost the capacity to thrive [56].
As reported before, F. graminearum prefers warm and hot climatic conditions (T > 15 °C). However, it can proliferate in a milder climate with higher temperatures and high humidity. F. graminearum is currently reported as the most common causal agent of head blight in cereals and maize ear rot [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20]. Fusarium fujikuroi also prefers a warmer climate with hot and dry vegetation seasons [86]. F. avenaceum, F. culmorum, and F. poae are seen in colder parts of the world [85,87,88,89,90] with an average annual air temperature between 5 °C and 15 °C and moderate precipitation. F. culmorum, however, is much more harmful to cereals at higher temperatures [15,24,87]. Fusarium spp. are the main reason for seedlings’ death, foot rot, and head blight. Fusarium head blight (FHB) is a dangerous infection due to the subsequent mycotoxins contamination.
Infection of cereal heads with Fusarium spp. can occur at different times, but they are most susceptible to infection during the flowering phase and immediately after flowering. Warm and humid weather, dew, and higher precipitation during this period [26,29,91,92] enable the infection. Symptoms of infection show off on the infected spikes; they become white. The infected spikelets die out and block the development of kernels, resulting in a smaller, gray, shriveled, and loose consistency, and sometimes grains are covered with sporodochia and Fusarium spp. mycelium grains [26,29,36]. Infected grains are usually reddish in color.
Deoxynivalenol (DON)-producing chemotypes of F. graminearum are widespread around the world, while nivalenol (NIV)-producing chemotypes can be found in Asia and Europe. However, the occurrence of individual chemotypes is often affected by weather conditions [30,93,94].

2.2. Aspergillus Spp.

2.2.1. Species Description

The most infamous fungi belonging to genera Aspergillus are Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus. Even though Aspergillus spp. can be found in small grain cereals, they prevail in maize and cause damage especially during droughty and hot seasons [95,96]. The reported climatic changes predict an increase of this pathogen, more severe infections, and significantly higher mycotoxin levels in cereals and corn [96,97].
Aspergillus spp. are commonly referred to as the black fungi, and they are pathogenic for several crops. Their habitat varies from temperate climatic conditions to tropical and sub-temperate zones. They can be found in soil, where they decompose dead plant tissue [95]. Aspergillus spp. can infect and cause serious economic damage to grapes, onions, maize, and peanuts. On maize, they cause maize seedling blight and maize kernel rot.
When combined with different hosts, some symptomless endophytes can act as pathogens or as saprophytes but, in either state, they can become producers of mycotoxins. Symptomless Aspergillus spp. infections have been reported in the literature but information about their ability to produce mycotoxins and any associated pathology is scarce. Early publications designated A. niger as the main species that causes damage. According to current findings, identification of Aspergillus spp. was somewhat off and certain corrections have been made. For example, today we know that the nomenclature of A. niger sensu stricto, or, A. niger var. niger, was so far designated as sensu lato and usually refers to A. niger. There are more than 190 Aspergillus species that can be separated into several distinct morphospecies. Some of the separations were done according to their colors [96], but more accurate and precise separation via data sequencing resulted in eight subgenera [97], of which only Circumdati, the sections Circumdati (=Aspergillus ochraceus group), and Nigri (A. niger group) represent economically harmful subgeneras. Aspergillus in section Nigri have been taxonomically revised, which resulted with several new taxa, such as A. niger var. niger, A. melleus, A. sulphureus, A. brasilensis, A. ostianus, A. petrakii, A. scletotium, A. carbonarius, A. aculeatus, A. japonicus, A. tubingensis, A. ibericus, and Eurotium herbariorum [98,99,100], but none of them have been identified as responsible for any crop disease. The Aspergillus genus prefers the tropical belt and is even more frequent in subtropical to warm temperate zones [95]. They thrive in the forest and cultivated soils, and dislike desert soils. Nevertheless, A. niger var. niger can be found in forests, grasslands, wetlands, deserts, and cultivated soils [95]. As mentioned before, the rising global temperatures will greatly influence the population and shift the species within the A. niger group to the more northern geographical latitudes.

2.2.2. Disease and Mycotoxin Production

Mycotoxins associated with Aspergillus subgenera or specific species pose a toxic threat to livestock, poultry, fish, and human health. Severe cases of poisoning, such as the Turkey-X disease of peanuts, caused by A. flavus and A. parasiticus, have been described in the literature [101]. The identification of aflatoxins as the toxicological agent [102] was the first step towards the solution of ensuring food safety. Another group of mycotoxins, ochratoxins, was also related to this genera. Today, they are reported as carcinogenic mycotoxins and are included in the legislation. Recently, ochratoxins have been reported in several other species of Aspergillus sections Circumdati (A. ochraceus group), and by Eurotium herbariorum, a member of the Aspergillus section (A. glaucus group) [103].

2.3. Alternaria Spp.

2.3.1. Species Description

Genus Alternaria, in particular Alternaria alternata, is a frequent contaminant of different small cereals causing “black point” disease. Favorable conditions for Alternaria spp. include high humidity and frequent precipitation [76].

2.3.2. Disease and Mycotoxin Production

A common symptom of this disease is the coloration of ears and grains with dark pigment, and melanin [104]. The black point mostly causes a decrease in milling quality of wheat, barley, and oats, and is not as significant as a yield reducer. However, the changes in flour and bran color have significant economic importance. Besides the discoloration, decreased nutritive value, and the loss of taste also significantly reduce the technological quality of cereal products [105].
Alternaria triticina can cause damages to ears and grains, but the disease can occur on leaves in the form of leaf blight lesions. Alternaria spp. are often reported as storage fungi, where they cause spoilage of small grains and small-grains-based products. Even though they enjoy humid (high water activity) and warm storage conditions, Alternaria spp. can proliferate worldwide, in both humid and semi-arid climatic areas. Alternaria spp. Have been reported on wheat, barley, oat, and rye [106,107,108,109]. In the Mediterranean countries, as well as in Estonia, Slowakia, and Argentina, the prevalent species are A. alternata and Alternaria tenuissima, reported on wheat [110,111,112,113], while Alternaria infectoria was reported in Norway [105]. Alternaria triticina, originally from Indian wheat, was also reported in Argentina [114,115]. Toth et al. [116] reported Alternaria hungarica as a novel species on Hungarian wheat, considering it a minor foliar pathogen with small economic importance. Serbia reported A. alternata and Alternaria logipes as wheat pathogens, while A. alternata and A. tenuissima were noted on spelt wheat [117,118].
Alternaria spp. produce mycotoxins with different toxicological properties. Since there were reports that certain Alternaria toxins could exhibit carcinogenic effects [119], the European Commission (EC) requested that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) provide a scientific opinion on the risks to animal and human health related to the presence of Alternaria toxins in food and feed [120]. Besides, Alternaria spores are considered to be one of the most prolific fungal allergens, and have been associated with respiratory allergies and skin infections [121,122,123].
According to different sources [124,125,126], Alternaria toxins can be sectioned into three main structural classes:
  • dibenzo-α-pyrone derivatives: alternariol (AOH), alternariol monomethyl ether (AME), altenuen (ALT), altenuisol (AS);
  • tetramic acid derivates: tenuazoic acid (TEA);
  • perylene derivatives: altertoxins I, II, III (ATX-I,-II,-III).
So far, Alternaria toxins have been detected in small cereal grains and small-grains-based products (bread and rolls, muesli, fine bakery wares, pasta, etc.) [120]. AOH, AME, and TEA in “black point wheat” on the German market [127,128]; AOH, AME, and ALT in Slovakian [113] and Czech grains [129]; AOH and AME in small cereal grains in Poland were reported [109]. Li and Yoshizawa [130] found wheat kernels significantly infected with mostly A. alternate; AOH was detected in 20 of 22 tested samples between 116–731 μg/kg. AME was at a mean level of 443 μg/kg (range = 51–1426 μg/kg) in 21 samples. TEA, the most abundant Alternaria toxin, was detected with an average level of 2419 μg/kg and with a maximum quantity of 6432 μg/kg. The presence of Alternaria strains in Argentinean wheat also designated TEA as the most abundant toxin [131].

2.4. Penicillium Spp.

2.4.1. Species Description

Several Penicillium spp. (Penicillium citrinum, Penicillium expansum) have been reported as foodborne contaminants, but Penicillium verrucosum is one of the most concerning species belonging to genera Penicillium. It is generally assumed that P. verrucosum is a common producer of OTA in temperate and cold climates [132]. Even though much research has been conducted on Penicillium spp. on cereals and maize [133,134,135,136,137,138], this fungal genera is not as popular as the other selected genera in this review.

2.4.2. Disease and Mycotoxin Production

Penicillium spp. are commonly saprophytic microorganisms that invade plant tissue and soil debris. Penicillium ear rot on maize usually occurs on ears already damaged by birds or insects [139,140]. In silage, the most frequently isolated Penicillium spp. is Penicillium roqueforti [141,142,143,144]. Based on rDNA genes analysis and chemotaxonomic profiles, a recent finding confirmed P. roqueforti as three species, P. roqueforti, Penicillium paneum, and Penicillium carneum [145]. Subsequently, only P. roqueforti and P. paneum have been reported in silage [143,145]. Both species, however, produce ROC (roquefortine C) and P. roqueforti also produces PR-toxin (Penicillin Roquefort toxin) and MPA (mycophenolic acid), while P. paneum produces PAT (patulin) as well [145,146,147]. Silage microbiota includes P. expansum, which produced ROC and PAT, P. crustosum and P. commune, both producers of CPA (cyclopiazonic acid), and ROC [148]. PAT and ROC can cause toxicoses in livestock (ROC has been reported as a suspected causal agent in several cases of paralysis, abortion, and placental retention in cattle) [141,142,149,150]. As with any other fungi, P. roqueforti can produce several mycotoxins at once, which makes it difficult to confirm that solely ROC is the toxin responsible for the reported symptoms. Several types of research suggested that ROC caused toxicosis in dogs after they had ingested food colonized by P. roqueforti. Reportedly, they suffered from paralysis, tremors, and convulsions [151,152,153], which indicates a neurotoxic effect. Here, too, it is impossible to claim that ROC is the main cause since another toxin, penitrem A, was detected as well. PAT was involved in cattle health disorders, causing tremors, paralysis, and death [154]. However, in this case, PAT was synthesized by Aspergillus clavatus, not Penicillium spp. Cattle suffered extensive damage to the nervous system. MPA is recognized as a potent immunosuppressant but does not possess the properties of acutely toxic compounds [155]. It is commonly utilized as an immunosuppressive agent for patients in need [156]. CPA, on another hand, is not well investigated but, in poultry, CPA exposure can result in tremors, liver, kidney, and gastrointestinal tract damage [157]. It can be excreted in milk, withstands pasteurization temperatures, and remains stable for extended periods of storage [158]. The potential dangers of Penicillium mycotoxins in the feed are yet to be fully discovered since not much information regarding their toxicity is available. CPA, MPA, PAT, and ROC are the most familiar toxins originating from Penicillum species (P. roqueforti, P. paneum, P. commune, P. crustosum, and P. expansum) [159].
Toxins are generally produced during storage time (low water activity, low pH, and oxygen concentration) [145,160,161]. For example, P. roqueforti and P. paneum can be found in silage. There they can thrive even if the silage is not visibly covered in mycelium, and they can also produce mycotoxins which is why they pose such a threat to animal and human health [141,145].

3. Bio-Acceptable Solutions for Fungal Control and Detoxification of Mycotoxins

Over the years, much scientific research has delivered various solutions for the reduction of fungal contamination, in the field as well as in storage silos. Current trends of sustainable development and ecological protection of nature, wildlife, and crops purport the reduction of chemical fungicides and the utilization of new and biologically acceptable substances originating from nature or non-chemical methods that can be applied to reduce or suppress fungal growth. This sustainability subsequently transfuses to human health protection. Table 2 presents a short overview of popular BCA methods.

3.1. Microbiological Approach

Recently, the application of various microorganisms (bacteria, yeast, and fungi) in the biotransformation of mycotoxins in food and feed has found many forms [162,277,278,279,280]. The idea to reduce the toxicity of a certain compound by transforming it into less toxic products with the mere use of eco-friendly subjects is more than enough to unite scholars in search of solutions. Popular biocontrol agents (BCAs) that are known to reduce FHB, belong to genera Bacillus [281,282,283,284,285,286], Pseudomonas [285,287], and Streptomyces [288]. Species belonging to Cryptococcus also display reduction properties and antagonistic activity towards pathogens causing FHB [289,290]. Different methods of biocontrol can be applied: antibiosis, mycoparasitism, competition, and the induction of resistance in the host plant [291]. The antagonistic activity of wheat endophytes is currently a popular weapon against F. graminearum [292]. Plants have different defensive compounds with which they act against pathogens. They are mediated by phytohormones such as jasmonic acid (JA), which triggers defense responses against necrotrophic pathogens; and salicylic acid (SA) which is activated by biotrophic pathogens. Both defense pathways interact antagonistically in the resistance response. The role of phytohormones in interactions involving pathogens, biocontrol agents, and the host are yet to be explored [293].
  • Bacteria—some bacteria are known to bind and detoxify mycotoxins from different foods and beverages [162]. Flavobacterium aurantiacum B-184 was successfully investigated for the degradation of AFs capable of irreversibly removing aflatoxin from solutions. AFB1 can be detoxified via Enterococcus faecium by binding to the peptidoglycans and polysaccharides in the cell wall of the bacterium [163]. Aerobic oxidation and partitioning of DON into C3 carbon carried out by Devosia species reduces contamination with this mycotoxin [164]. Lactobacillus (L.) casei and Lactobacillus reuteri are known to bind AFs in aqueous solutions and Lactobacillus amylovorus and Lactobacillus rhamnosus display a binding efficiency of 60% AFB1 [165]. Lactobacillus fermentum was shown to be a satisfactory binder (98%) of FB1 and of T-2 (84%) [166]. Bacillus velezensis RC 218 and Streptomyces albidoflavus RC 87B successfully reduced FHB up to 30%, its severity up to 25%, and DON accumulation up to 51% on durum wheat under field conditions [167]. Zeidan et al. investigated the use of Burkholderia cepacia in the biocontrol of mycotoxigenic fungi and the reduction of ochratoxin A biosynthesis by Aspergillus carbonarius. The results indicated that QBC03 culture supernatant acted inhibitory to the growth of Aspergillus carbonarius, Fusarium culmorum, and P. verrucosum. Synthesis of ochratoxin A by A. carbonarius was also reduced [168]. De Melo Nazareth et al. reported that Lactobacillus plantarum CECT 749 CFS showed a high antifungal effect against A. flavus and F. verticillioides on corn kernels and corn ears, and FB1 and AFB1 levels were significantly reduced [169]. Clonostachys rosea (IK726) was used as biological seed treatment of cereals against Fusarium culmorum [170] and the results showed that this could be applied as an alternative to chemical fungicides for the control of seedborne infections caused by F. culmorum. Clonostachys rosea strain ACM941 was also tested as an anti-Fusarium agent and the results indicated that strain ACM941 of C. rosea is a promising biocontrol agent against F. graminearum and may be used as a control measure in an integrated FHB management program [171].
  • Yeast—yeasts reproduce with great speed and produce antimicrobial compounds which act beneficially in humans and animals. The most popular yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, can significantly degrade DON and reduce the rate of lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) release in DON-stimulated cells [172], but it can also reduce the levels of AFB1 and OTA [173]. PAT can be reduced by S. cerevisiae via physical adsorption where the O-N/N-H protein and polysaccharide bonds of cell walls interact with PAT [174]. Kluyveromyces marxianus can be useful in binding AFB1, OTA, and ZEN (zearalenone). Candida utilis can be applied in mycotoxins binding as well [175]. Yarrowia lipolytica, too, is very effective in reducing OTA concentrations (cca 50%) [176]. Another yeast, Rhodotorula mucilaginosa, is known to degrade PAT to dexipitulic acid [177]. The application of Lachancea thermotolerans in the control of Aspergillus parasiticus, P. verrucosum, and F. graminearum and their mycotoxins was assessed by Zeidan et al. [178]. They reported that yeast colonies reduced Fusarium growth and the synthesis of DON. Inactivated yeast cells were able to reduce almost 82% of OTA [178].
  • Fungi—according to a source [163], fungi capable of producing aflatoxins can also break them down. Fungi such as Aspergillus, Rhizopus, Trichoderma, Clonostachys, and Penicillium spp. are proven to be successful in the detoxification of mycotoxins [179]. Non-toxic strains of A. flavus and A. parasiticus were shown to be very effective in reducing aflatoxin contamination in maize, cotton, pistachio, and peanuts, when released into the soil around the crops in large amounts. They compete with native soil toxic strains and prevail [180]. An extensive book chapter by [1] provides a more detailed insight in this topic.
  • A commercially available combination of yeast, bacteria, and oomycete (Trichoderma asperellum, Streptomyces griseoviridis, Pythium oligandrum) was tested against F. graminearum and F. verticillioides. The results showed that against F. graminearum, T. asperellum was efficient in reducing the growth and mycotoxin concentration by 48% and 72%. 78% and 72% was the efficiency against F. verticillioides. P. oligandrum reduced the growth of F. graminearum and mycotoxin concentration by 79% and 93%. F. verticillioides growth and mycotoxin concentration was too reduced (49% and 56%). The application of S. griseoviridis resulted in a growth inhibition zone where the pathogen mycelium structure appeared to be altered, suggesting the diffusion of antimicrobial compounds [181].

3.2. Preharvest Agronomical Strategies

  • Crop rotation—crop residues are an excellent habitat for fungi due to containing many nutritious residues. Without crop rotation, fungi reside on residues of previous crops and can transfer to the next commodity sown in the field. Crop rotation can help in the reduction of Fusarium spp. development and subsequently reduce the mycotoxins levels in grains [59,182]. Planting cereals year after year on the same field, especially after wheat and maize, facilitates the development and proliferation of Fusarium spp. [14,183,184,185]. In fields where wheat was sown after maize, DON levels in grain were elevated [186], but ZEA was detected in 45% of the samples [185]. Forecrops that act limiting to Fusarium spp. are root crops and legume plants [184,187]. According to [186,188], soybean as a forecrop reduces the Fusarium head blight and DON levels in wheat. The lack of crop rotation in conventional cereal cultivation presumably leads to a higher infection rate than in organic farming [24]. Another way of reducing Fusarium spp. infections is the use of catch crops. A catch crop is a fast-growing crop grown between successive plantings of the main crop. The cultivation of white mustard reduced the occurrence of Fusarium spp. and acted positively on the health of the main plant [189]. The removal of previous crop residues can also act favorably to Fusarium spp. suppression.
  • Tillage—one of the most important methods for FHB reduction. Soil cultivation by tillage means that the topsoil up to 30 cm would reverse, or shallow up to 20 cm. This affects the reduction of mycotoxins in grains as well [24]. Inverting the soil with a plow and covering the plant residues from the previous crop proved to be a very efficient method for DON reduction [190]. According to [191], deeper tillage shows better results in the fungal count.
  • Fertilization—interestingly, the application of mineral fertilizers in the field could induce a higher infection rate of Fusarium spp. [192]. Namely, due to the excess nitrogen content in the soil, the frequency of grain infection with Fusarium fungi becomes higher. However, even though the type of fertilizer (urea, ammonium nitrate, or calcium nitrate) can affect the rate of grain infected with Fusarium spp., DON levels are not as affected [193]. A study reported different mycotoxins in winter wheat fertilized with a higher nitrogen dose, 200 kg N ha−1, in comparison to the wheat treated with 120 kg N ha−1. A significant statistical relationship between the concentration of mycotoxins and the amount of nitrogen fertilizer and wheat cultivar was confirmed as well [194].
  • Seed and sowing—sowing high-quality seed is an important factor in the prevention of pathogenic fungi. Healthy, undamaged seeds with adequate viability and appropriate moisture are desirable seed material [40]. The sowing date can significantly affect crop yield. During the flowering period, the risk of Fusarium infection is higher, therefore winter cereals are less susceptible to Fusarium infection [195,196]. An early sowing date of maize, in a moderate climate, can act protectively against fungal infections [197]. According to [198], high maize grain contamination with mycotoxins occurred while high precipitation and lower temperatures prevailed during the flowering to the maize maturation period. Maize infection and the accumulation of mycotoxins (fumonisins) is especially expressed during drought periods [34] which could be easily resolved by implementing an irrigation system. This helps the plant to relieve the stress caused by the drought which subsequently reduces the infection rate of F. verticillioides and mycotoxin contamination. For small cereal, irrigation can actually contribute to the occurrence of FHB [199,200].
  • Breeding and selection—various genetic pools of breeding programs in individual countries, and agronomic and environmental cultivation conditions provide different genetic material [201]. So far, genetic modification has resulted in varieties resistant, or showing partial resistance, to Fusarium spp. This has proven to be the most suitable method for the suppression of Fusarium infections [21,202,203,204]. Mechanisms developed by cereals to defend from Fusarium spp. involve five types: type I is the resistance to infection and type II is resistance to the spread of the pathogen in the head [205,206]. Type III is the so-called resistance to DON (or the ability to degrade it). Type IV describes the plants’ tolerance to infection and the presence of DON and other similar secondary metabolites [207], and type V refers to resistance to the accumulation and degradation of mycotoxins in grain by transforming them into non-toxic derivatives or by blocking the biosynthesis of toxic metabolites [208,209]. To achieve successful breeding and transgenesis, it is important to understand the fundamental molecular relations between the host-pathogen and plant defense systems [204]. Overexpression of the HvNEP-1 gene (an antifungal gene) in the endosperm causes barley to be less susceptible to FHB infection. This leads to lower mycotoxin levels in the grain [210]. Silencing of targeted genes is an important tool for Fusarium spp. control in cereals. RNA interference (RNAi) is a natural mechanism that regulates gene expression, but host-induced gene silencing (HIGS) is a transgenic technology used to silence fungal genes on plants during attempted infection with successful reduction of infection [211]. This method relies on the ability of the host plant to produce mobile, small interfering RNA molecules generated from long double-stranded RNA that are complementary to targeted fungal genes and act as effectors and regulators of plant response to pathogens. To achieve and induce gene silencing, these molecules are to be transferred from the plant to fungi [212]. Mycotoxins levels in cereals can be lowered by choosing a resistant cultivar, and by reduction of mycotoxin accumulation and biosynthesis. Phenolic compounds, peptides or carotenoids, and pro-oxidative molecules such as hydrogen peroxide can have a regulatory effect on mycotoxins synthesis [208].

3.3. Post-Harvest

  • Microbiological agents—as an alternative to chemicals, and natural in origin, this firstly refers to antagonistic microorganisms. Interactions between cereal plants and microorganisms have been detected and defined as potentially beneficial, for they can enhance defense mechanisms in plants [213]. However, fungi have the ability to synthesize different secondary metabolites (antibiotics) that act antifungal, antibacterial, and have insecticidal characteristics, thus interfering with the growth and proliferation of other microorganisms [214]. Treating maize seeds with Trichoderma harzianum T22 [215] could suppress the growth of F. verticillioides and subsequent fumonisin accumulation.
  • Physical methods—the most popular and relatively simple method is grain moisture adjustment. Namely, grain moisture should be adjusted shortly after harvest to ensure minimal microbial activity. Microbial activity, especially by field and storage fungi, can be expressed through damaged grains which can be a result of husking [216,217]. This can lead to increased mycotoxin concentrations in grains. Unit operations such as sorting, washing, and milling can be included in reducing the mycotoxins concentration in cereals and cereal-based products [220]. Non-invasive methods involving UV light illumination or opto-electronic sorting can be used for sorting. Some of the mycotoxins accumulated in the surface tissues of grains can be removed by cleaning, husking, and removing residues [219]. Therefore, high concentrations of mycotoxins can be found in damaged grains, fine material, and dust [218,241]. Cleaning the grains’ surface prevents colonization by Fusarium fungi and accumulation of their mycotoxins. As mentioned before, adequate humidity and seed storage temperature plays an important role in mycotoxin levels and fungal proliferation [221]. Different adsorbents (activated carbon, aluminosilicates, or polymers) have proven to be very effective in toxin absorption in vitro and in vivo studies [222]. A somewhat expensive but efficient method that controls the fungal growth and the production of mycotoxins is antioxidants and essential oils applied alongside the utilization of a controlled atmosphere in the storage room [241]. Ozone application to disinfect cereals, vegetables, and fruits, or to detoxify mycotoxins [223], is increasingly used due to its simple application, the fact that it leaves no undesirable residues [224], and it is successful in preventing the development of pathogenic fungi during storage [225]. Ozonation can efficiently reduce DON content in wheat grain [226]. The exposure time to ozone is an important factor that determines the rate of mycotoxin degradation in grains [223]. The use of ozone (O3) in the degradation of mycotoxins was reported in several papers [223,227,228,229,230,231]. It is successful in the degradation of AFB1 and AFG1. Ozonification conducted under optimum conditions can significantly contribute to DON (29–32%), and its modified form DON-3-glucoside (DON-3-Glc) (44%), reduction [227].
  • Radiation—commonly described as ionizing radiation or non-ionizing radiation [232] that can reduce or eliminate pathogenic microorganisms. Radiation can be utilized in industrial conditions, which makes it rather applicable for larger and bulk commodities. It changes the molecular structure of food ingredients with a series of reactions [219]. A very important discovery was noted in irradiated distilled water and fruit juices of orange, pineapple, and tomato contaminated with ZEN. Namely, ZEN toxicity was reduced. However, a higher dose of radiation (>10 kGy) affected the quality of the fruit juices [233]. Irradiation of 50 kGy with an electron beam caused degradation of ZEN and OTA by 71.1% and 67.9%, respectively, in naturally infected corn [234]. Gamma irradiation can also be applied and a reduction of AFB1 (>95%) at 6 kGy was recorded in rice processing [235]. PAT concentrations in apple juice were reduced by 83% after a 5 min irradiation [236]. However, the broader application of radiation methods in the food industry is still a questionable approach since it can cause physical, chemical, and biological effects following molecular reactions [234] that are potentially harmful to humans and animals.

3.4. Innovative Biocontrol and Detoxification Strategies

Nanoparticles—to reduce the toxicity of AFB1 magnetic carbon, nanocomposites have proven to be efficient, and nanoparticles of chitosan-coated Fe3O4 were utilized for PAT detoxification of PAT. Silver nanoparticles showed limiting properties against Fusarium spp. growth and have even proven to be effective in reducing mycotoxin levels [237,238]. A nanocomposites mixture of activated carbon, bentonite, and aluminum oxide showed excellent detoxifying properties for mycotoxins [239]. Research involving nanoparticles is on the rise and a new photocatalyst nanoparticle [email protected]2 (upconversion nanoparticle) was reported to have the ability to degrade DON molecules in cereals [240].
Plant Extracts—essential oils (EOs) are composed of many bioactive compounds that can be applied as antifungal agents [242,243,244], but they can also be utilized to inhibit mycotoxin synthesis [227]. The application of natural agents is considered to be both human and environmentally friendly. Spanish paprika has an inhibitory effect on A. parasiticus and P. nordicum, and even on the production of AFB1, AFG1, and OTA. According to the source, the addition of 2–3% of Spanish paprika can help in reducing the AF and OTA in meat products [245]. An active paprika compound, capsaicin, reduced OTA production in grapes by Aspergillus section Nigri and by A. carbonarius [246]. Velluti et al. [247] studied cinnamon, clove, lemongrass, oregano, and palmarose essential oils on the growth of F. proliferatum and fumonisin B1 production in maize kernels. At 0.995 aw, all essential oils were effective at 20 and 30 °C. Lower aw at 30 °C inhibited the activity of all essential oils while, at 20 °C, cinnamon, clove, and oregano oils were still active. FB1 production was inhibited by cinnamon, oregano, and palmarose oils at 0.995 aw and both temperatures. Clove and lemongrass oils showed inhibitory activity at 30 °C. At lower aw, none of the essential oils were inhibitory to the production of FB1. Several scientists reported the inhibitory effect of clove and cinnamon oils on growth and aflatoxin production by A. flavus [248,249,250,251,252] and, in maize, cinnamon and clove oils effectively fought against aflatoxin formation by A. flavus for 10 days [250]. A. flavus, A. ochraceus, and A. niger’s reaction to oregano oil was noted by Paster et al. [253,254], and it was described as efficient in suppressing fungi in wheat [254]. Palmarose oil proved to be active against 12 fungi, to which it appeared to range from being non-effective to inhibitory [255]. Kanižai-Šarić [256] reported success in using different concentrations of butylated hydroxyanisole, propylparaben and thymol against F. graminearum on chicken and pig feed.
Cold plasma (CP)—is the so-called fourth state of matter mainly consisting of photons, ions, and free radicals (reactive oxygen and nitrogen species) with unique physical and chemical properties [257,258]. CP displays antimicrobial effects [219] and therefore it is commonly used in food processing [232]. Cold atmospheric pressure plasma (CAPP) is a low-cost and environmentally friendly technology that could be used for mycotoxin decontamination [219,258]. Low-pressure cold plasma was proven to be 50% efficient in the detoxification of alfatoxins on the surface of nuts [259]. Similarly, a significant reduction of AFB1 and FB1 mycotoxins was noted in maize to which CAPP was applied, and in a short amount of time (under 10 min) [258]. The application of cold atmospheric plasma resulted in a 93% reduction in AFs, 90% reduction in TCs, 100% reduction in ZEA, and 93% reduction in FUs after 8 min of exposure [257]. Plasma treatments in a duration of 5 s were reported to result in 100% degradation of AFB1, DON, and NIV [260].
Application of chitosan—a linear polysaccharide with antimicrobial characteristics in combination with aw in fungal growth control and mycotoxin reduction by the Fusarium species (F. proliferatum, F. graminearum, and F. verticillioides) on maize and wheat was studied. The results showed a decline of DON and FB levels in irradiated maize and wheat grains following the application of low-molecular-weight chitosan with deacetylation above 70%, and a dose of 0.5 mg/g [261].
Marine microorganisms—a marine strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa with good antifungal activity against A. niger, A. flavus, A. oryzae, F. oxysporum, and Sclerotium rolfsii was investigated by [262]. It was later discovered that it produces two broad-spectrum antifungal compounds (pyocyanin and phenazine-1-carboxylic acid) [263] that can reduce the growth of the above-mentioned fungal species. Chitinolytic marine bacterial strains, Pseudomonas sp., Pantoea dispersa, and Enterobacter amnigenu, showed characteristics applicable as antifungal biocontrol agents for the control of fungal plant pathogens, such as Macrophomina phaseolina and Fusarium spp. Gohel et al. [264]. Another chitinolytic microbial species isolated from water, Streptomyces vinaceusdrappus, displayed antifungal activity against sclerotia-producing pathogen Rhizoctonia solani [265]. A strain of marine Bacillus megaterium can effectively reduce the production of aflatoxins and expression of aflR and aflS genes [266]. In short, the analysis indicated that A. flavus genes were down-regulated by co-cultivation with B. megaterium across the entire fungal genome and especially within the aflatoxin pathway gene cluster (aflF, aflT, aflS, aflJ, aflL, and aflX). The expression of the regulatory gene aflS was down-regulated as well during co-cultivation and this resulted in the inability of the AflR/AflS-dependent aflatoxin pathway gene to transcribe and activate. In return, no AFs could be produced [267].
Marine yeasts—Debaryomyces hansenii was reported as an efficient species against pathogenic fungi. A strain of D. hansenii was able to reduce 80% of the incidence of disease caused by Penicillium italicum in Mexican lime [268]. D. hansenii was also studied against the mycelial growth of four maize postharvest pathogens (Mucor circinelloides, Aspergillus sp., F. proliferatum and F. subglutinans). The results were satisfactory since it was able to reduce the production of fumonisins of F. subglutinans to 59.8%, and postharvest decay by P. citrinum in Persian lime [269,270].
Fungi—some marine fungi and their secondary metabolites from marine fungi can be utilized as biocontrol weapons against pathogenic fungi. A cyclic lipopeptide (15G256γ) originating from the marine fungus Hypoxylon oceanicum was reportedly successful as an antifungal agent [271]. Numerous scholars [272,273,274,275,276] and their dedicated research are seeking biological compounds or microorganisms that could be applied in sustainable agriculture and food production.

4. Conclusions and Prospects

The future brings one inevitable thing—global warming. Climatic changes in combination with fungal shifts in cereals and maize will demand constant monitoring of food safety regarding different (regulated and so-far unregulated) secondary metabolites harmful to humans and animals. However, higher consciousness regarding environmental protection will probably delegate the ecological aspects of food production. Greater need for food and cereals will also influence the need to reduce ecological damage via fungicide application and will demand bio-acceptable solutions for bigger cropping areas.
Biological control is applicable and many novel methods are being discovered, mostly based on microbiological research and the application of microorganisms that can suppress fungal growth and detoxify mycotoxins. So far, agrotechnical measures have proven to be efficient if applied properly. Application of biocontrol agents should be done in storage units as well, rounding up the whole cycle from stable to table with good agricultural practice. Approachable methods are presented in this review, and for now the most reliable method is moisture reduction during grain storage. It is important to search for alternative methods and agents, to explore different approaches in ensuring food safety.
Bio-acceptable methods should be friendly to the environment and the crop, but also to producers and consumers. Introduction and application of biological and natural protective agents against fungal contamination will surely be one of the most important projects that would help ensure the health of humanity and help sustain eco-friendly food production.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.H.; investigation, V.K.; resources, J.B.; data curation, G.K.Š. and K.M.; writing—original draft preparation, K.M. and K.H.; writing—review and editing, Z.Z. and K.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abdallah, H.F.; Ameye, M.; De Saeger, S.; Audenaert, K.; Haesaert, G. Biological Control of Mycotoxigenic Fungi and Their Toxins: An Update for the Pre-Harvest Approach, Mycotoxins—Impact and Management Strategies; Njobeh, P.B., Stepman, F., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2018; Available online: https://www.intechopen.com/books/mycotoxins-impact-and-management-strategies/biological-control-of-mycotoxigenic-fungi-and-their-toxins-an-update-for-the-pre-harvest-approach (accessed on 14 April 2021). [CrossRef][Green Version]
  2. Gould, G.W. Industry perspectives on the use of natural antimicrobials and inhibitors for food applications. J. Food Prot. 1996, 59, 82–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bankole, S.A. Effects of essential oils of two Nigerian medicinal plants (Azadirachta indica and Morinda lucida) on growth and aflatoxin B1 production in maize grain by a toxigenic Aspergillus flavus. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 1997, 24, 190–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ntushelo, K.; Ledwaba, L.K.; Rauwane, M.E.; Adebo, O.A.; Njobeh, P.B. The Mode of Action of Bacillus Species against Fusarium graminearum, Tools for Investigation, and Future Prospects. Toxins 2019, 11, 606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  5. Chakraborty, S.; Newton, A.C. Climate change, plant diseases and food security: An overview. Plant Pathol. 2011, 60, 2–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Parikka, P.; Hakala, K.; Tiilikkala, K. Expected shifts in Fusarium species’ composition on cereal grain in Northern Europe due to climatic change. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2012, 29, 1543–1555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhang, H.; van der Lee, T.; Waalwijk, C.; Chen, W.; Xu, J.; Xu, J.; Zhang, Y.; Feng, J. Population analysis of the Fusarium graminearum species complex from wheat in China show a shift to more aggressive isolates. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e31722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  8. Janhanger, J. Mycotoxins—An Increasing Problem?—The Effect of Climate Changes on Fusarium Mould Populations and the Occurrence of Fusarotoxins in Swedish Cereals; Independent Project in Food Science; Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: Uppsala, Sweden, 2018; Available online: https://stud.epsilon.slu.se/13677/12/janhager_j-180821.pdf (accessed on 28 January 2021).
  9. Battilani, P.; Toscano, P.; Van der Fels-Klerx, H. Aflatoxin B1 contamination in maize in Europe increases due to climate change. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 24328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  10. Final Report Summary-MYCORED (Novel Integrated Strategies for Worldwide Mycotoxin Reduction in the Food and Feed Chains). Available online: https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/222690/reporting (accessed on 14 April 2021).
  11. Alassane-Kpembi, I.; Schatzmayr, G.; Taranu, I.; Marin, D.; Puel, O.; Oswald, I.P. Mycotoxins co-contamination: Methodological aspects and biological relevance of combined toxicity studies. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 3489–3507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Perrone, G.; Ferrara, M.; Medina, A.; Pascale, M.; Magan, N. Toxigenic Fungi and Mycotoxins in a Climate Change Scenario: Ecology, Genomics, Distribution, Prediction and Prevention of the Risk. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bottallico, A.; Perrone, G. Toxigenic Fusarium species and mycotoxins associated with head blight in small-grain cereals in Europe. J. Plant. Pathol. 2002, 108, 611–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. McMullen, M.; Bergstrom, G.C.; DeWolf, E.; Dill-Macky, R.; Hershman, D.; Shaner, G.; Van Sanford, D. A unified effort to fight an enemy of wheat and barley: Fusarium head blight. Plant. Dis. 2012, 96, 1712–1728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  15. Backhouse, D.; Burgess, L.W.; Summerell, B.A. Biogeography of Fusarium. In Fusarium Nelson Memorial Symposium; Summerell, B.A., Leslie, J.F., Backhouse, D., Bryden, W.L., Burgess, L.W., Eds.; APS Press: St Paul, MN, USA, 2012; pp. 122–137. [Google Scholar]
  16. Tekauz, A.; McCallum, B.; Ames, N.; Mitchell Fetch, J. Fusarium head blight of oat—Current status in western Canada. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 2004, 26, 473–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chełkowski, J.; Gromadzka, K.; Stepien, Ł.; Lenc, L.; Kostecki, M.; Berthiller, F. Fusarium species, zearalenone and deoxynivalenol content in preharvest scabby wheat heads from Poland. World Mycotoxin J. 2012, 5, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wisniewska, H.; Stepien, L.; Waskiewicz, A.; Beszterda, M.; Góral, T.; Belter, J. Toxigenic Fusarium species infecting wheat heads in Poland. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 2014, 9, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hellin, P.; Dedeurwaerder, G.; Duvivier, M.; Scauflaire, J.; Huybrechts, B.; Callebaut, A.; Munaut, F.; Legrève, A. Relationship between Fusarium spp. diversity and mycotoxin contents of mature grains in southern Belgium. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2016, 33, 1228–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  20. Hietaniemi, V.; Rämö, S.; Yli-Mattila, T.; Jestoi, M.; Peltonen, S.; Kartio, M.; Sieviläinen, E.; Koivisto, T.; Parikka, P. Updated survey of Fusarium species and toxins in Finnish cereal grains. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2016, 33, 831–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tekauz, A.; Mitchell Fetch, J.W.; Rossnagel, B.G.; Savard, M.E. Progress in assessing the impact of Fusarium head blight on oat in western Canada and screening of Avena germplasm for resistance. Cereal Res. Commun. 2008, 36, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pearse, P.G.; Holzgang, G.; Weitzel, C.N.; Fernandez, M.R. Fusarium head blight in barley and oat in Saskatchewan in 2006. Can. Plant Dis. Surv. 2007, 87, 61–62. [Google Scholar]
  23. Tamburic-Ilincic, L. Fusarium species and mycotoxins associated with oat in southwestern Ontario, Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2010, 90, 211–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bernhoft, A.; Torp, M.; Clasen, P.-E.; Løes, A.-K. Influence of agronomic and climatic factors on Fusarium infestation and mycotoxin contamination of cereals in Norway. Food Addit. Contam. 2012, 29, 1129–1140. [Google Scholar]
  25. Salgado, J.D.; Madden, L.V.; Paul, P.A. Efficacy and economics of integrating in-field and harvesting strategies to manage Fusarium head blight of wheat. Plant Dis. 2014, 98, 1407–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  26. Parry, D.W.; Jenkinson, P.; McLeoad, L. Fusarium ear blight (scab) in small grain cereals—A review. Plant Pathol. 1995, 44, 207–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Infantino, A.; Santori, A.; Shah, D.A. Community structure of the Fusarium complex on wheat seed in Italy. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2012, 132, 499–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Miller, J.D. Mycotoxins in small grains and maize: Old problems, new challenges. Food Addit. Contam 2008, 25, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Golinski, P.; Waskiewicz, A.; Wisniewska, H.; Kiecana, I.; Mielniczuk, E.; Gromadzka, M.; Kostecki, M.; Bocianowski, J.; Rymaniak, E. Reaction of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars to infection with Fusarium spp. mycotoxins contamination in grain and chaff. Food Addit. Contam. A. 2010, 27, 1015–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  30. Covarelli, L.; Beccari, G.; Prodi, A.; Generotti, S.; Etruschi, F.; Juan, C.; Ferrer, E.; Mañes, J. Fusarium species, chemotype characterisation and trichothecene contamination of durum and soft wheat in anarea of central Italy. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2015, 95, 540–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Stenglein, S.A.; Dinolfo, M.I.; Barros, G.; Bongiorno, F.; Chulze, S.N.; Moreno, M.V. Fusarium poae pathogenicity and mycotoxin accumulation on selected wheat and barley genotypes at a single location in Argentina. Plant Dis. 2014, 98, 1733–1738. [Google Scholar]
  32. Gräfenhan, T.; Patrick, S.K.; Roscoe, M.; Trelka, R.; Gaba, D.; Chan, J.M.; McKendry, T.; Clear, R.M.; Tittlemier, S.A. Fusarium damage in cereal grains from Western Canada. 1. Phylogenetic analysis of moniliformin-producing fusarium species and their natural occurrence in mycotoxin-contaminated wheat, oats, and rye. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 5425–5437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Czaban, J.; Wróblewska, B.; Sułek, A.; Mikos, M.; Boguszewska, E.; Podolska, G.; Nieróbca, A. Colonisation of winter wheat grain by Fusarium spp. and mycotoxin content as dependent on a wheat variety, crop rotation, a crop management system and weather conditions. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2015, 32, 874–910. [Google Scholar]
  34. Ferrigo, D.; Raiola, A.; Causin, R. Fusarium toxins in cereals: Occurrence, legislation, factors promoting the appearance and their management. Molecules 2016, 21, 627. [Google Scholar]
  35. Linkmeyer, A.; Hofer, K.; Rychlik, M.; Herz, M.; Hausladen, H.; Hückelhoven, R.; Hess, M. Influence of inoculum and climatic factors on the severity of Fusarium head blight in German spring and winter barley. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2016, 33, 489–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kiecana, I.; Mielniczuk, E.; Kaczmarek, Z.; Kostecki, M.; Golinski, P. Scab response and moniliformin accumulation in kernels of oat genotypes inoculated with Fusarium avenaceum in Poland. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2002, 108, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Barreto, D.; Carmona, M.; Ferrazini, M.; Zanelli, M.; Perez, B.A. Occurrence and pathogenicity of Fusarium poae in barley in Argentina. Cereal Res. Commun. 2004, 32, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Touati-Hattab, S.; Barreau, C.; Verdal-Bonnin, M.-N.; Chereau, S.; Forget, F.R.; Hadjout, S.; Mekliche, L.; Bouznad, Z. Pathogenicity and trichothecenes production of Fusarium culmorum strains causing head blight on wheat and evaluation of resistance of the varieties cultivated in Algeria. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2016, 145, 797–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kamle, M.; Mahato, D.K.; Devi, S.; Lee, K.E.; Kang, S.G.; Kumar, P. Fumonisins: Impact on agriculture, food, and human health and their management strategies. Toxins 2019, 11, 328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  40. Edwards, S.G. Fusarium mycotoxin content of UK organic and conventional oats. Food Addit. Contam. 2009, 26, 1063–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  41. Yli-Mattila, T. Detection of trichothecene-producing Fusarium species in cereals in northen Europe and Asia. Agron. Res. 2011, 9, 521–526. [Google Scholar]
  42. Yli-Mattila, T.; Rämö, S.; Hietaniemi, V.; Hussien, T.; Carlobos-Lopez, A.L.; Cumagun, C.J.R. Molecular quantification and genetic diversity of toxigenic Fusarium species in Northern Europe as compared to those in Southern Europe. Microorganisms 2013, 1, 162–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lenc, L. Fusarium head blight (FHB) and Fusarium populations in grain of winter wheat grown in differ end cultivation systems. J. Plant Prot. Res. 2015, 55, 94–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  44. Kulik, T.; Jestoi, M. Quantification of Fusarium poae DNA and associated mycotoxins in symptomatically contaminated wheat. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2009, 130, 233–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Leslie, J.F. Introductory biology of Fusarium moniliforme. In Fumonisins in Food; Jackson, L.S., De Vries, J.W., Bullerman, L.B., Eds.; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1996; pp. 153–164. [Google Scholar]
  46. Nelson, P.E. Taxonomy and biology of Fusarium moniliforme. Mycopathologia 1992, 117, 29–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nelson, P.E.; Desjardins, A.E.; Plattner, R.D. Fumonisins, mycotoxins produced by Fusarium species: Biology, chemistry and significance. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1993, 31, 233–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Headrick, J.; Pataky, J. Maternal influence on the resistance of sweet corn lines to kernel infection by Fusarium moniliforme. Phytopathology 1991, 81, 268–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Munkvold, G.P.; Carlton, W.M. Influence of inoculation method on systemic Fusarium moniliforme infection of maize plants grown from infected seeds. Plant Dis. 1997, 81, 211–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  50. Munkvold, G.P.; Helmich, R.L.; Showers, W.B. Reduced Fusarium ear rot and symptomless infection in kernels of maize genetically engineered for European corn borer resistance. Phytopathology 1997, 87, 1071–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  51. Munkvold, G.P.; McGee, D.C.; Carlton, W.M. Importance of different pathways for maize kernel infection by Fusarium verticillioides. Phytopathology 1997, 97, 209–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  52. Foley, D.C. Systemic infection of corn by Fusarium moniliforme. Phytopathology 1962, 52, 870–872. [Google Scholar]
  53. Desjardins, A.E.; Plattner, R.D.; Nelsen, T.C.; Leslie, J.F. Genetic analysis of fumonisin production and virulence of Gibberella fujikuroi mating population A (Fusarium moniliforme) on maize (Zea mays) seedlings. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1995, 61, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  54. Brown, R.; Cleveland, T.; Woloshuk, C.; Payne, G.; Bhatnagar, D. Growth inhibition of a Fusarium verticillioides GUS strain in corn kernels of aflatoxin-resistant genotypes. Appl. Biotechnol. Microbiol. 2001, 57, 708–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Fumonisin Levels in Human Foods and Animal Feeds—Draft Guidance; Food and Drug Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
  56. Oldenburg, E.; Höppner, F.; Ellner, F.; Weinert, J. Fusarium diseases of maize associated with mycotoxin contamination of agricultural products intended to be used for food and feed. Mycotoxin Res. 2017, 33, 167–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Munkvold, G.P. Epidemiology of Fusarium diseases and their mycotoxins in maize ears. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2003, 109, 705–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Parsons, M.W.; Munkvold, G.P. Effects of planting date and environmental factors on Fusarium ear rot symptoms and fumonisin B1 accumulation in maize grown in six North American locations. Plant Pathol. 2012, 61, 1130–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Mielniczuk, E.; Skwaryło-Bednarz, B. Fusarium Head Blight, Mycotoxins and Strategies for Their Reduction. Agronomy 2020, 10, 509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  60. Duncan, K.E.; Howard, R.J. Biology of maize kernel infection by Fusarium verticillioides. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2010, 23, 6–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  61. Reid, L.M.; Nicol, R.W.; Ouellet, T.; Savard, M.; Miller, J.D.; Young, J.C.; Stewart, D.W.; Schaafsma, A.W. Interaction of Fusarium graminearum and F. moniliforme in maize ears: Disease progress, fungal biomass, and mycotoxin accumulation. Phytopathology 1999, 89, 1028–1037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  62. Oldenburg, E.; Ellner, F. Distribution of disease symptoms and mycotoxins in maize ears infected by Fusarium culmorum and Fusarium graminearum. Mycotoxin Res. 2015, 31, 117–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Schollenberger, M.; Müller, H.-M.; Ernst, K.; Sondermann, S.; Liebscher, M.; Schlecker, C.; Wischer, G.; Drochner, W.; Hartung, K.; Piepho, H.-P. Occurrence and distribution of 13 trichothecene toxins in naturally contaminated maize plants in Germany. Toxins 2012, 4, 778–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Czembor, E. Impact of plant morphology for kinetics of red ear rot of maize caused by Fusarium graminearum development and deoxynivalenol formation. In Proceedings of the 13th European Fusarium Seminar, Martina Franca (TA), Apulia, Italy, 10–14 May 2015; Conference Abstracts, Session 3. pp. 23–137. [Google Scholar]
  65. Czembor, E.; Stępień, Ł.; Waśkiewicz, A. Fusarium temperatum as a new species causing ear rot on maize in Poland. Plant Dis. 2014, 98, 1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Boutigny, A.; Scauflaire, J.; Ballois, N.; Ioos, R. Fusarium temperatum isolated from maize in France. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2017, 148, 997–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Scauflaire, J.; Gourgue, M.; Callebaut, A.; Munaut, F. Fusarium temperatum sp. nov. from maize, an emergent species closely related to Fusarium subglutinans. Mycologia 2011, 103, 586–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  68. Scarpino, V.; Reyneri, A.; Vanara, F.; Scopel, C.; Causin, R.; Blandino, M. Relationship between European corn borer injury, Fusarium proliferatum and F. subglutinans infection and moniliformin contamination in maize. Field Crop Res. 2015, 183, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mesterházy, A.; Lemmens, M.; Reid, L.M. Breeding for resistance to ear rots caused by Fusarium spp. in maize—A review. Plant Breed. 2012, 131, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Al-Juboory, H.H.; Juber, K.S. Efficiency of some inoculation methods of Fusarium proliferatum and F. verticillioides on the systemic infection and seed transmission on maize under field conditions. Agric. Biol. J. N. Am. 2013, 4, 583–589. [Google Scholar]
  71. Griessler, K.; Rodrigues, I.; Handl, J.; Hofstetter, U. Occurrence of mycotoxins in southern Europe. World Mycotoxin J. 2010, 3, 301–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). Evaluation of the increase of risk for public health related to a possible temporary derogation from the maximum level of deoxynivalenol, zearalenone and fumonisins for maize and maize products. EFSA J. 2014, 12, 3699. [Google Scholar]
  73. Santiago, R.; Cao, A.; Butrón, A. Genetic factors involved in fumonisin accumulation in maize kernels and their implications in maize agronomic management and breeding. Toxins 2015, 7, 3267–3296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  74. Waskiewicz, A.; Wit, M.; Golinski, P.; Chelkowski, J.; Warzecha, R.; Ochodzki, P.; Wakulinski, W. Kinetics of fumonisin B1 formation in maize ears inoculated with Fusarium verticillioides. Food Addit. Contam. 2012, 29, 1752–1761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Bluhm, B.H.; Woloshuk, C.P. Amylopectin induces fumonisin B1 production by Fusarium verticillioides during colonization of maize kernels. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2005, 12, 1333–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  76. Logrieco, A.; Bottalico, A.; Mulé, G.; Moretti, A.; Perrone, G. Epidemiology of toxigenic fungi and their associated mycotoxins for some Mediterranean crops. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2003, 109, 645–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lazzaro, I.; Falavigna, C.; Galaverna, G.; Dall’Asta, C.; Battilani, P. Cornmeal and starch influence the dynamic of fumonisin B, A and C production and masking in Fusarium verticillioides and F. proliferatum. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2013, 166, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bottalico, A.; Logrieco, A. Occurrence of toxigenic fungi and mycotoxins in Italy. In Occurrence of Toxigenic Fungi in Plants, Foods and Feeds in Europe; Logrieco, A., Ed.; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2001; COST Action 835, EUR 19695; pp. 69–104. [Google Scholar]
  79. Jestoi, M. Emerging Fusarium mycotoxins fusaproliferin, beauvericin, enniatins, and moniliformin—A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2008, 48, 21–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Logrieco, A.; Moretti, A.; Perrone, G.; Mulè, G. Biodiversity of complexes of mycotoxinogenic fungal species associated with Fusarium ear rot of maize and Aspergillus rot of grape. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 119, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Streit, E.; Schatzmayr, G.; Tassis, P.; Tzika, E.; Marin, D.; Taranu, I.; Tabuc, C.; Nicolau, A.; Aprodu, I.; Puel, O.; et al. Current situation of mycotoxin contamination and co-occurrence in animal feed—Focus on Europe. Toxins 2012, 4, 788–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  82. Leggieri, C.; Bertuzzi, T.; Pietry, A.; Battilani, P. Mycotoxin occurrence in maize produced in northern Italy over the years 2009–2011: Focus on the role of crop related factors. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2015, 54, 212–221. [Google Scholar]
  83. Dodd, J.L.; White, D.G. Seed rot, seedling blight, and damping-off. In Compendium of Corn Diseases; White, D.G., Ed.; The American Phytopathological Society: Saint Paul, MN, USA, 1999; pp. 10–11. [Google Scholar]
  84. Broders, K.D.; Lipps, P.E.; Paul, P.A.; Dorrance, A.E. Evaluation of Fusarium graminearum associated with corn and soybean seed and seedling disease in Ohio. Plant Dis. 2007, 91, 1155–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  85. Pintos Varela, C.; Aguín Casal, O.; Chavez Padin, M.; Ferreiroa Martinez, V.; Sainz Oses, M.J.; Scauflaire, J.; Munaut, F.; Bande Castro, M.J.; Mansilla Vázquez, J.P. First report of Fusarium temperatum causing seedling blight and stalk rot on maize in Spain. Plant Dis. 2013, 97, 1252. [Google Scholar]
  86. Pascale, M.; Visconti, A.; Chelkowski, J. Ear rot susceptibility and mycotoxin contamination of maize hybrids inoculated with Fusarium species under field conditions. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2002, 108, 645–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Xu, X.M.; Nicholson, P.; Thomsett, M.A.; Simpson, D.; Cooke, B.M.; Doohan, F.M.; Edwards, S.G. Relationship between the fungal complex causing Fusarium head blight of wheat and environmental conditions. Phytopathology 2008, 98, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  88. Popovski, S.; Celar, F.A. The impact of environmental factors on the infection of cereals with Fusarium species and mycotoxin production—A review. Acta Agric. Slov. 2013, 101, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Stenglein, S.A.; Dinolfo, M.I.; Bongiorno, F.; Moreno, M.V. Response of wheat (Triticum spp.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare) to Fusarium poae. Agrociencia 2012, 46, 299–306. [Google Scholar]
  90. Yli-Mattila, T. Ecology and evolution of toxigenic Fusarium species in cereals in Northern Europe and Asia. J. Plant Pathol. 2010, 92, 7–18. [Google Scholar]
  91. Osborne, L.E.; Stein, J.M. Epidemiology of Fusarium head blight on small-grain cereals. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 119, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hjelkrem, A.-G.R.; Torp, T.; Brodal, G.; Aamot, H.U.; Strand, E.; Nordskog, B.; Dill-Macky, R.; Edwards, S.G.; Hofgaard, I.S. DON content in oat grains in Norway related to weather conditions at different growth stages. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2017, 148, 577–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  93. Paul, P.A.; Lipps, P.E.; Madden, L.V. Relationship between visual estimates of Fusarium head blight intensity and deoxynivalenol accumulation in harvested wheat grain: A Meta-Analysis. Phytopathology 2005, 95, 1225–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  94. Pasquali, M.; Beyer, M.; Logrieco, A.; Audenaert, K.; Balmas, V.; Basler, R.; Boutigny, A.-L.; Chrpová, J.; Czembor, E.; Gagkaeva, T.; et al. A European Database Fusarium graminearum and F. culmorum Trichothecene Genotypes. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  95. Klich, M.A. Biogeography of Aspergillus species in soil and litter. Mycologia 2002, 94, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Raper, K.B.; Fennell, D.I. Aspregillus niger Group. In The Genus Aspergillus; Raper, K.B., Fennell, D.I., Eds.; The Williams & Wilkins Co.: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1965; Chapter 16; pp. 293–344. [Google Scholar]
  97. Samson, R.A.; Varga, J. Molecular systematics of Aspergillus and its teleomophs. In Aspergillus: Molecular Biology and Genomics; Machida, M., Gomi, K., Eds.; Caister Academic Press: Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan, 2010; pp. 20–25. [Google Scholar]
  98. Abarca, M.L.F.; Accensi, F.; Cano, J.; Cabanes, F.J. Taxonomy and significance of black Aspergilli. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2004, 86, 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Accensi, F.; Abarca, M.L.; Cano, J.; Figuera, L.; Cabanes, F.J. Distribution of ochratoxin a producing strains in the A. niger aggregate. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2001, 79, 365–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Samson, R.A.; Houbraken, J.; Kuijpers, A.; Frank, J.M.; Frisvad, J.C. New ochratoxin or sclerotium producing species in Aspergillus section Nigra. Stud. Mycol. 2004, 50, 45–61. [Google Scholar]
  101. Allcroft, R.C.R.B.; Sargent, K.; O’Kelly, J. A toxic factor in Brazilian groundnut meal. Vet. Rec. 1961, 73, 428. [Google Scholar]
  102. Sargeant, K.; Sheridan, A.; O’Kelly, J.; Carnaghan, R.B.A. Toxicity assocaited with certain samples of groundnuts. Nature 1961, 192, 1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Palencia, E.R.; Hinton, D.M.; Bacon, C.W. The Black Aspergillus Species of Maize and Peanuts and Their Potential for Mycotoxin Production. Toxins 2010, 2, 399–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Thomma, B. Alternaria spp.: From general saprophyte to specific parasite. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2003, 4, 226–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Kosiak, B.; Torp, M.; Skjerve, E.; Andersen, B. Alternaria and Fusarium in Norwegian grains of reduced quality—A matched pair sample study. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004, 93, 51–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Medina, A.; Valle-Algarra, F.; Mateo, R.; Gimeno-Adelantado, J.; Mateo, F.; Jiménez, F. Survey of the mycobiota of Spanish malting barley and evaluation of the mycotoxin producing potential of species of Alternaria, Aspergillus and Fusarium. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006, 108, 196–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Hudec, K. Influence of harvest date and geographical location on kernel symptoms, fungal infestation and embryo viability of malting barley. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 113, 125–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kwasna, H.; Kosiak, B. Lewia avenicola sp. nov. and its Alternaria anamorph from oat grain, with a key to the species of Lewia. Mycol. Res. 2003, 107, 371–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Grabarkiewicz-Szczęsna, J.; Chelkowski, J.; Zajkowski, P. Natural occurrence of Alternaria mycotoxins in the grain and chaff of cereals. Mycotoxin Res. 1989, 5, 77–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Logrieco, A.; Bottalico, A.; Solfrizzo, M.; Mule, G. Incidence of Alternaria Species in Grains from Mediterranean Countries and Their Ability to Produce Mycotoxins. Mycologia 1990, 82, 501–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Bensassi, F.; Zidi, M.; Rhouma, A.; Bacha, H.; Hajlaoui, M.R. First report of Alternaria species associated with black point of wheat in Tunisia. Ann. Microbiol. 2009, 59, 465–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Kütt, M.L.; Lõiveke, H.; Tanner, R. Detection of alternariol in Estonian grain samples. Agron. Res. 2010, 8, 317–322. [Google Scholar]
  113. Mašková, Z.; Tančinová, D.; Barboráková, Z.; Felšöciová, S.; Císarová, M. Comparison of occurrence and toxigenity of Alternaria spp. isolated from samples of conventional and new crossbread wheat of Slovak origin. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 2012, 1, 552–562. [Google Scholar]
  114. Prasada, R.; Prabhu, A.S. Leaf blight of wheat caused by new species of Alternaria triticina. Indian Phytopathol. 1962, 15, 292–293. [Google Scholar]
  115. Perello, A.E.; Sisterna, M.N. Leaf blight of wheat caused by Alternaria triticina in Argentina. Plant Pathol. 2006, 55, 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Toth, B.; Csosz, M.; Szabo-Hever, A. Alternaria hungarica sp. nov., a minor foliar pathogen of wheat in Hungary. Mycologia 2011, 103, 94–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Vučković, J.; Bagi, F.; Bodroža-Solarov, M.; Stojšin, V.; Budakov, D.; Ugrenović, V.; Aćimović, M. Alternaria spp. on spelt kernels (Triticum aestivum ssp. spelta). Plant Dr. 2012, 1, 50–55. [Google Scholar]
  118. Ivanović, M.; Martić, M.; Đurić, N.; Dragović, G. The most common wheat disease in the conditions of Pančevački rit. Inst. PKB Agroekon. 2001, 7, 27–31. [Google Scholar]
  119. Liu, G.; Qian, Y.; Zhang, P.; Dong, W.; Qi, Y.; Guo, H. Etiological role of Alternaria alternata in human esophageal cancer. Chin. Med. J. 1992, 105, 394–400. [Google Scholar]
  120. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain. Scientific opinion on the risks for animal and public health related to the presence of Alternaria toxins in feed and food. EFSA J. 2011, 9, 2407. [Google Scholar]
  121. Corden, J.; Millington, W.; Mullins, J. Long-term trends and regional variation in the aeroallergen Alternaria in Cardiff and Derby UK—Are differences in climate and cereal production having an effect? Aerobiologia 2003, 19, 191–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Kilic, M.; Altintas, U.; Yilmaz, M.; Kendirli, G.; Karakoc, B.; Taskin, E.; Ceter, T.; Pinar, N.M. The effects of meteorological factors and Alternaria spore concentrations on children sensitised to Alternaria. Allergol. Immunopathol. 2010, 38, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Pavón, M.A.; González, I.; Pegels, N.; Martín, R.; García, T. PCR detection and identification of Alternaria species-groups in processed foods based on the genetic marker Alt a 1. Food Control 2010, 21, 1745–1756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Ostry, V. Alternaria mycotoxins: An overview of chemical characterization, producers, toxicity, analysis and occurrence in foodstuffs. World Mycotoxin J. 2008, 1, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Logrieco, A.; Moretti, A.; Solfrizzo, M. Alternaria toxins and plant diseases: An overview of origin, occurrence and risks. World Mycotoxin J. 2009, 2, 129–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Battilani, P.; Costa, L.G.; Dossena, A.; Gullino, M.L.; Marchelli, R.; Galaverna, G.; Pietri, A.; Dall’Asta, C.; Giorni, P.; Spadaro, D.; et al. Scientific information on mycotoxins and natural plant toxicants. Sci. Tech. Rep. Submitt. EFSA 2009, 8214, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  127. Asam, A.; Konitzer, K.; Rychlik, M. Precise determination of the Alternaria mycotoxins alternariol and alternariol monomethyl ether in cereal, fruit and vegetable products using stable isotope dilution assays. Mycotoxin Res. 2011, 27, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Siegel, D.; Rasenko, T.; Koch, M.; Nehls, I. Determination of the Alternaria mycotoxin tenuazonic acid in cereals by high-performance liquid chromatography–electrospray ionization ion-trap multistage mass spectrometry after derivatization with 2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine. J. Chromatogr. A 2009, 1216, 4582–4588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Malachova, A.; Dzuman, Z.; Veprikova, Z.; Vaclavikova, M.; Zachariasova, M.; Hajslova, J. Deoxynivalenol, Deoxynivalenol-3-glucoside, and Enniatins: The Major Mycotoxins Found in Cereal-Based Products on the Czech Market. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 12990–12997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Li, F.; Yoshizawa, T. Alternaria mycotoxins in weathered wheat from China. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48, 2920–2924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Patriarca, A.; Azcarate, M.P.; Terminiello, L.; Fernández, V. Mycotoxin production by Alternaria strains isolated from Argentinean wheat. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 119, 219–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Cabañes, F.J.; Bragulat, M.R. Ochratoxin A in profiling and speciation. In Aspergillus in the Genomic Era; Varga, J., Samson, R.A., Eds.; Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 57–70. [Google Scholar]
  133. Accensi, F.; Abarca, M.L.; Cabañes, F.J. Occurrence of Aspergillus species in mixed feeds and component raw materials and their ability to produce ochratoxin A. Food Microbiol. 2004, 21, 623–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Elmholt, S.; Rasmussen, P.H. Penicillium verrucosum occurrence and Ochratoxin A contents in organically cultivated grain with special reference to ancient wheat types and drying practice. Mycopathologia 2005, 159, 421–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  135. Boudra, H.; Le Bars, P.; Le Bars, J. Thermostability of ochratoxin A in wheat under two moisture conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1995, 61, 1156–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  136. Jørgensen, K.; Rasmussen, G.; Thorup, I. Ochratoxin A in Danish cereals 1986–1992 and daily intake by the Danish population. Food Addit. Contam. 1996, 13, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Jørgensen, K.; Jacobsen, J.S. Occurrence of ochratoxin A in Danish wheat and rye, 1992–1999. Food Addit. Contam. 2002, 19, 1184–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Miller, J.D. Review. Fungi and mycotoxins in grain: Implications for stored product research. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1995, 31, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Carson, M.L. Diseases of minor importance and limited occurrence. In Compendium of Corn Diseases, 3rd ed.; White, D.G., Ed.; The American Phytopathological Society: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1999; pp. 23–25. [Google Scholar]
  140. Kurtzman, C.P.; Ciegler, A. Mycotoxin from a blue-eye mold of corn. Appl. Microbiol. 1970, 20, 204–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Auerbach, H.; Oldenburg, E.; Weissbach, F. Incidence of Penicillium roqueforti and roquefortine C in silages. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1998, 76, 565–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Ohmomo, S.; Kitamoto, H. Detection of roquefortines in Penicillium roqueforti isolated from moulded silage. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1994, 64, 211–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Sumarah, M.W.; Miller, J.D.; Blackwell, B.A. Isolation and metabolite production by Penicillium roqueforti, P. paneum and P. crustosum isolated in Canada. Mycopathologia 2005, 159, 571–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Vesely, D.; Vesela, D.; Adamkova, A. Occurrence of Penicillium roqueforti producing PR toxin in maize silage. Vet. Med. Czech 1981, 26, 109–115. [Google Scholar]
  145. Boysen, M.E.; Jacobsson, K.G.; Schnurer, J. Molecular identification of species from the Penicillium roqueforti group associated with spoiled animal feed. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000, 66, 1523–1526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  146. Nielsen, K.F.; Sumarah, M.W.; Frisvad, J.C.; Miller, J.D. Production of metabolites from the Penicillium roqueforti complex. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 3756–3763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. O’Brien, M.; Nielsen, K.; O’Kiely, P.; Forristal, P.D.; Fuller, H.T.; Frisvad, J.C. Mycotoxins and other secondary metabolites produced in vitro by Penicillium paneum Frisvad and Penicillium roqueforti Thom isolated from baled grass silage in Ireland. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 9268–9276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  148. Frisvad, J.C.; Filtenborg, O. Terverticillate penicillia: Chemotoxonomy and mycotoxin production. Mycologia 1989, 81, 837–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Haggblom, P. Isolation of roquefortine C from feed grain. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1990, 56, 2924–2926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  150. Still, P.E.; Wei, R.D.; Smalley, E.B.; Srong, F.M. A mycotoxin from Penicillium roqueforti isolated from toxic cattle feed. Fed. Proc. 1972, 31, 733. [Google Scholar]
  151. Boysen, S.R.; Rozanski, E.A.; Chan, D.L.; Grobe, T.L.; Fallon, M.J.; Rush, J.E. Tremorgenic mycotoxicosis in four dogs from a single household. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2002, 221, 1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Naude, T.W.; O’Brien, O.M.; Rundberget, T.; McGregor, A.D.; Roux, C.; Flaoyen, A. Tremorgenic neuromycotoxicosis in 2 dogs ascribed to the ingestion of penitrem A and possibly roquefortine in rice contaminated with Penicillium crustosum. J. S. Afr. Vet. Assoc. 2002, 73, 211–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  153. Young, K.L.; Villar, D.; Carson, T.L.; Ierman, P.M.; Moore, R.A.; Botoff, M.R. Tremorgenic mycotoxin intoxication with penitrem A and roquefortine in two dogs. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 2003, 222, 52–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Sabater-Vilar, M.; Maas, R.F.M.; De Bosschere, H.; Ducatelle, R.; Fink-Gremmels, J. Patulin produced by an Aspergillus clavatus isolated from feed containing malting residues associated with a lethal neurotoxicosis in cattle. Mycopathologia 2004, 158, 419–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Bentley, R. Mycophenolic acid: A one hundred year odyssey from antibiotic to immunosuppressant. Chem. Rev. 2000, 100, 3801–3825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Schneweis, I.; Meyer, K.; Hormansdorfer, S.; Bauer, J. Mycophenolic acid in silage. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000, 66, 3639–3641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  157. Dorner, J.W.; Cole, R.J.; Lomax, L.G.; Gosser, H.S.; Diener, U.L. Cyclopiazonic acid production by Aspergillus flavus and its effects on broiler chickens. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1983, 46, 698–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  158. Prasongsidh, B.C.; Kailaspathy, K.; Skurray, G.R.; Bryden, W.L. Kinetic study of cyclopiazonic acid during the heat processing of milk. Food Chem. 1998, 62, 467–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Mansfield, M.A.; Kuldau, G.A. Microbiological and molecular determination of mycobiota in fresh and ensiled maize silage. Mycologia 2007, 99, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Gock, M.A.; Hocking, A.D.; Pitt, J.I.; Poulos, P.G. Influence of temperature, water activity and pH on growth of some xerophilic fungi. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2003, 81, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Magan, N.; Lacey, J. Effect of temperature and pH on water relations of field and storage fungi. Trans. Br. Mycol. Soc. 1984, 82, 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Ben Taheur, F.; Kouidhi, B.; Al Qurashi, Y.M.A.; Ben Salah-Abbès, J.; Chaieb, K. Review: Biotechnology of mycotoxins detoxification using microorganisms and enzymes. Toxicon 2019, 160, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Umesha, S.; Manukumar, H.M.G.; Chandrasekhar, B.; Shivakumara, P.; Kumar, J.S.; Raghava, S.; Avinash, P.; Shirin, M.; Bharathi, T.R.; Rajini, S.B.; et al. Aflatoxins and food pathogens: Impact of biologically active aflatoxins and their control strategies. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 97, 1698–1707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Hassan, Y.I.; Zhou, T. Addressing the mycotoxin deoxynivalenol contamination with soil-derived bacterial and enzymatic transformations targeting the C3 carbon. World Mycotoxin J. 2018, 11, 101–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Kagot, V.; Okoth, S.; De Boevre, M.; De Saeger, S. Biocontrol of Aspergillus and Fusarium mycotoxins in Africa: Benefits and limitations. Toxins 2019, 11, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  166. Adebo, O.A.; Kayitesi, E.; Njobeh, P.B. Reduction of Mycotoxins during fermentation of Whole Grain Sorghum to Whole Grain Ting (A Southern African Food). Toxins 2019, 11, 180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  167. Palazzini, J.; Roncallo, P.; Cantoro, R.; Chiotta, M.; Yerkovich, N.; Palacios, S.; Echenique, V.; Torres, A.; Ramirez, M.; Karlovsky, P.; et al. Biocontrol of Fusarium graminearum sensu stricto, Reduction of Deoxynivalenol Accumulation and Phytohormone Induction by Two Selected Antagonists. Toxins 2018, 10, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  168. Zeidan, R.; Ul-Hassan, Z.; Al-Thani, R.; Migheli, Q.; Jaoua, S. In-Vitro Application of a Qatari Burkholderia cepacia strain (QBC03) in the Biocontrol of Mycotoxigenic Fungi and in the Reduction of Ochratoxin A biosynthesis by Aspergillus carbonarius. Toxins 2019, 11, 700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  169. Nazareth, T.d.M.; Luz, C.; Torrijos, R.; Quiles, J.M.; Luciano, F.B.; Mañes, J.; Meca, G. Potential Application of Lactic Acid Bacteria to Reduce Aflatoxin B1 and Fumonisin B1 Occurrence on Corn Kernels and Corn Ears. Toxins 2020, 12, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  170. Jensen, B.; Knudsen, I.M.B.; Jensen, D.F. Biological seed treatment of cereals with fresh and long-term stored formulations of Clonostachys rosea: Biocontrol efficacy against Fusarium culmorum. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2000, 106, 233–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Xue, A.G.; Voldeng, H.D.; Savard, H.D.; Fedak, G.; Tian, X.; Hsiang, T. Biological control of fusarium head blight of wheat with Clonostachys rosea strain ACM941. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 2009, 31, 169–179. [Google Scholar]
  172. Liu, Y.; Chang, J.; Wang, P.; Yin, Q.; Huang, W.; Liu, C.; Bai, X.; Zhu, Q.; Gao, T.; Zhou, P. Effects of Saccharomyces cerevisiae on alleviating cytotoxicity of porcine jejunal epithelia cells induced by deoxynivalenol. AMB Express 2019, 9, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  173. Mendieta, C.R.; Gomez, G.V.; Del Río, J.C.G.; Cuevas, A.C.; Arce, J.M.; Ávila, E.G. Effect of the addition of Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast cell walls to diets with mycotoxins on the performance and immune responses of broilers. J. Poult. Sci. 2018, 55, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  174. Zhang, Z.; Li, M.; Wu, C.; Peng, B. Physical adsorption of patulin by Saccharomyces cerevisiae during fermentation. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 56, 2326–2331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Jakopovic, Ž.; Čiča, K.H.; Mrvčić, J.; Pucić, I.; Čanak, I.; Frece, J.; Pleadin, J.; Stanzer, D.; Zjalić, S.; Markov, K. Properties and fermentation activity of industrial yeasts Saccharomyces cerevisiae, S. uvarum, Candida utilis and Kluyveromyces marxianus exposed to AFB1, OTA and ZEA. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 2018, 56, 208–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Yang, Q.; Wang, J.; Zhang, H.; Li, C.; Zhang, X. Ochratoxin A is degraded by Yarrowia lipolytica and generates non-toxic degradation products. World Mycotoxin J. 2016, 9, 269–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Li, X.; Tang, H.; Yang, C.; Meng, X.; Liu, B. Detoxification of mycotoxin patulin by the yeast Rhodotorula mucilaginosa. Food Control 2019, 96, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Zeidan, R.; Ul-Hassan, Z.; Al-Thani, R.; Balmas, V.; Jaoua, S. Application of Low-Fermenting Yeast Lachancea thermotolerans for the Control of Toxigenic Fungi Aspergillus parasiticus, Penicillium verrucosum and Fusarium graminearum and Their Mycotoxins. Toxins 2018, 10, 242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  179. Alberts, J.F.; Lilly, M.; Rheeder, J.P.; Burger, H.M.; Shephard, G.S.; Gelderblom, W.C.A. Technological and community-based methods to reduce mycotoxin exposure. Food Control 2017, 73, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Sarrocco, S.; Mauro, A.; Battilani, P. Use of Competitive Filamentous Fungi as anAlternative Approach for Mycotoxin Risk Reductionin Staple Cereals: State of Art and Future Perspectives. Toxins 2019, 11, 701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  181. Pellan, L.; Durand, N.; Martinez, V.; Fontana, A.; Schorr-Galindo, S.; Strub, C. Commercial Biocontrol Agents Reveal Contrasting Comportments against Two Mycotoxigenic Fungi in Cereals: Fusarium graminearum and Fusarium verticillioides. Toxins 2020, 12, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  182. Janssen, E.M.; Mourits, M.C.M.; Fels-Klerx, H.J.; Oude Lansink, A.G.J.M. Pre-harvest measures against Fusarium spp. Infection and related mycotoxins implemented by Dutch wheat farmers. Crop Prot. 2019, 122, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Hofgaard, I.S.; Aamot, H.U.; Torp, T.; Jestoi, M.; Lattanzio, V.M.T.; Klemsdal, S.S.; Waalwijk, C.; Van der Lee, T.; Brodal, G. Associations between Fusarium species and mycotoxins in oats and spring wheat from farmers’ fields in Norway over a six-year period. World Mycotoxin J. 2016, 9, 365–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Weber, R.; Kita, W. The effects of tillage systems and preceding crop types on the frequency of the incidence of Fusarium culmorum and Fusarium avenaceum on culm bases of some winter wheat cultivars. Acta Agrobot. 2010, 63, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  185. Qiu, J.; Dong, F.; Yu, M.; Xu, J.; Shi, J. Effect of preceding crop on Fusarium species and mycotoxin contamination of wheat grains. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 4536–4541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  186. Schaafsma, A.W.; Tamburic-Ilinic, L.; Miller, J.D.; Hooker, D.C. Agronomic considerations for reducing deoxynivalenol in wheat grain. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 2001, 23, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Fernandez, M.R.; Conner, R.L. Root and crown rot of wheat. Prairie Soils Crop. J. 2011, 4, 151–157. [Google Scholar]
  188. Dill-Macky, R.; Jones, R.K. The effect of previous crop residues and tillage on Fusarium head blight of wheat. Plant Dis. 2000, 84, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  189. Kraska, P.; Mielniczuk, E. The occurrence of fungi on the stem base and roots of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown in monoculture depending on tillage sys-tems and catch crops. Acta Agrobot. 2012, 65, 1–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  190. Klix, M.B. Major Mycotoxin Producin Fusarium Species in Wheat-Factors A Ecting the Species Complex Composition and Disease Management; Cuvillier Verlag: Göttingen, Germany, 2007; pp. 17–32. [Google Scholar]
  191. Steinkellner, S.; Langer, I. Impact of tillage on the incidence of Fusarium spp. in soil. Plant Soil 2004, 267, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Gajecki, M.; Jakimiuk, E.; Gajecka, M.; Motyka, J.; Obremski, K. Praktyczne metody zmniejszania aktywnosci mikotoksyn w paszach. Mag. Weter. Monogr. 2010, 6, 605–610. [Google Scholar]
  193. Yi, C.; Kaul, H.P.; Kübler, E.; Schwadorf, K.; Aufhammer, I. Head blight (Fusarium graminearum) and deoxynivalenol concentration in winter wheat as affected by pre-crop soil tillage and nitrogen fertilisation. Pflanzen 2001, 108, 217–230. [Google Scholar]
  194. Podolska, G.; Bryła, M.; Sułek, A.; Waskiewicz, A.; Szymczyk, K.; Jedrzejczak, R. Influence of the cultivar and nitrogen fertilisation level on the mycotoxin contamination in winter wheat. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crop. Foods 2017, 9, 451–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Champeil, A.; Fourbet, J.F.; Dore, T.; Rossignol, L. Influence of cropping system on Fusarium head blight and mycotoxin levels in winter wheat. Crop Prot. 2004, 23, 531–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. Jouany, J.P. Methods for preventing, decontaminating and minimizing the toxicity of mycotoxins in feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2007, 137, 342–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Magan, N.; Aldred, D. Post-harvest control strategies: Minimizing mycotoxins in the food chain. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 119, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  198. Blandino, M.; Scarpino, V.; Giordano, D.; Sulyok, M.; Krska, M.; Vanara, F.; Reyneri, A. Impact of sowing time, hybrid and environmental conditions on the contamination of maize by emerging mycotoxins and fungal metabolites. Ital. J. Agron. 2017, 12, 928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  199. Torelli, E.; Firrao, G.; Bianchi, G.; Saccardo, F.; Locci, R. The influence of local factors on the prediction of fumonisin contamination in maize. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2012, 92, 1808–1814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Gautam, P.; Dill-Macky, R. Impact of moisture, host genetics and Fusarium graminearum isolates on Fusarium head blight development and trichothecene accumulation in spring wheat. Mycotoxin Res. 2012, 28, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Edwards, S.G. Influence of agricultural practices on fusarium infection of cereals and subsequent contamination of grain by trichothecene mycotoxins. Toxicol. Lett. 2004, 153, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Buerstmayr, H.; Lemmens, M.; Hartl, L.; Doldi, L.; Steiner, B.; Stierschneider, M.; Ruckenbauer, P. Molecular mapping of QTLs for Fusarium head blight resistance in spring wheat. I. Resistance to fungal spread (Type II resistance). Theor. Appl. Genet. 2002, 104, 84–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Lanubile, A.; Maschietto, V.; Borrelli, V.M.; Stagnati, L.; Logrieco, A.F.; Marocco, A. Molecular basis of resistance to Fusarium Ear Rot in maize. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 12, 1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Perincherry, L.; Lalak-Kanczugowska, J.; Stepien, Ł. Fusarium-Produced mycotoxins in plant-pathogen interactions. Toxins 2019, 11, 664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  205. Schroeder, H.W.; Christensen, J.J. Factors affecting resistance of wheat to scab by Gibberella zeae. Phytopathology 1963, 53, 831–838. [Google Scholar]
  206. Steiner, B.; Buerstmayr, M.; Michel, S. Breeding strategies and advances in line selection for Fusarium head blight resistance in wheat. Trop. Plant Pathol. 2017, 42, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  207. Mesterhazy, A. Types and components of resistance to Fusarium head blight of wheat. Plant Breed. 1995, 114, 377–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Boutigny, A.L.; Richard-Forget, F.; Barreau, C. Natural mechanisms for cereal resistance to the accumulation of Fusarium trichothecenes. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2008, 121, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Kluger, B.; Bueschl, C.; Lemmens, M.; Michlmayr, H.; Malachova, A.; Koutnik, A.; Maloku, I.; Berthiller, F.; Adam, G.; Krska, R.; et al. Biotransformation of the mycotoxin deoxynivalenol in Fusarium resistant and susceptible near isogenic wheat lines. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0119656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Bekalu, Z.E.; Krogh Madsen, C.; Dionisio, G.; Bæksted Holme, I.; Jørgensen, L.N.S.; Fomsgaard, I.; Brinch-Pedersen, H. Overexpression of nepenthesin HvNEP-1 in barley endosperm reduces Fusarium head blight and mycotoxin accumulation. Agronomy 2020, 10, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  211. Machado, A.K.; Brown, N.A.; Urban, M.; Kanyuka, K.; Hammond-Kosack, K.E. RNAi as an emerging approach to control Fusarium head blight disease and mycotoxin contamination in cereals. Pest Manag. Sci. 2018, 74, 790–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  212. Majumdar, R.; Rajasekaran, K.; Cary, J.W. RNA interference (RNAi) as a potential tool for control of mycotoxin contamination in crop plants: Concepts and considerations. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  213. Kuzniar, A.; Włodarczyk, K.; Wolinska, A. Agricultural and Other Biotechnological Applications Resulting from Trophic Plant-Endophyte Interactions. Agronomy 2019, 9, 779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  214. Dutta, D.; Puzari, K.C.; Gogoi, R.; Dutta, P. Endophytes: Exploitation as a tool in plant protection. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2014, 57, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  215. Ferrigo, D.; Raiola, A.; Picollo, E.; Scopel, C.; Causin, R. Trichoderma harzianum T22 induces in maize systemic resistance against Fusarium verticillioides. J. Plant Pathol. 2014, 96, 133–142. [Google Scholar]
  216. Mutiga, S.K.; Mushongi, A.A.; Kangéthe, E.K. Enhancing food safety through adoption of long-term technical advisory, financial, and storage support services in maize growing areas of East Africa. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  217. Mutiga, S.K.; Were, V.; Homann, V.; Harvey, H.W.; Milgroom, M.G.; Nelson, R.J. Extent and drivers of mycotoxin contamination: Inferences from a survey of Kenyan maize mills. Phytopathology 2014, 104, 1221–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  218. Cheli, F.; Pinotti, L.; Rossi, L.; Dell’Orto, V. Effect of milling procedures on mycotoxin distribution in wheat fractions: A review. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 54, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Karlovsky, P.; Suman, M.; Berthiller, F.; Meester, J.; Eisenbrand, G.; Perrin, I.; Oswald, I.P.; Speijers, G.; Chiodini, A.; Recker, T.; et al. Impact of food processing and detoxification treatments on mycotoxin contamination. Mycotoxin Res. 2016, 32, 179–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  220. Grenier, B.; Bracarense, A.P.; Leslie, J.F.; Oswald, I.P. Physical and chemical methods for mycotoxin decontamination in maize. In Mycotoxin Reduction in Grain Chains; Leslie, J.F., Logrieco, A.F., Eds.; Wiley Blackwell: New Delhi, IA, USA, 2014; pp. 116–129. [Google Scholar]
  221. Tanaka, K.; Sago, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Nakagawa, H.; Kushiro, M. Mycotoxins in rice. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 20, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  222. Huwig, A.; Freimund, S.; Käppeli, O.; Dutler, H. Mycotoxin detoxication of animal feed by different adsorbents. Toxicol. Lett. 2001, 122, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  223. Li, M.M.; Guan, E.Q.; Bian, K. Effect of ozone treatment on deoxynivalenol and quality evaluation of ozonized wheat. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2015, 32, 544–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Agriopoulou, S.; Stamatelopoulou, E.; Varzakas, T. Advances in occurrence, importance, and mycotoxin control strategies: Prevention and detoxification in foods. Foods 2020, 9, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Mohapatra, D.; Kumar, S.; Kotwaliwale, N.; Singh, K.K. Critical factors responsible for fungi growth in stored food grains and non-Chemical approaches for their control. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2017, 108, 162–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Trombete, F.M.; Porto, Y.D.; Freitas-Silva, O.; Pereira, R.V.; Direito, G.M.; Saldanha, T.; Fraga, M.E. Effycacy of ozone treatment on mycotoxins and fungal reduction in artificially contaminated soft wheat grains: Effcacy of O3 on mycotoxins and fungi. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2016, 41, e12927. [Google Scholar]
  227. Piemontese, L.; Messia, M.C.; Marconi, E.; Falasca, L.; Zivoli, R.; Gambacorta, L.; Perrone, G.; Solfrizzo, M. Effect of gaseous ozone treatments on DON, microbial contaminants and technological parameters of wheat and semolina. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2018, 35, 760–771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  228. Porto, Y.D.; Trombete, F.M.; Freitas-Silva, O.; de Castro, I.M.; Direito, G.M.; Ascheri, J.L.R. Gaseous Ozonation to Reduce Aflatoxins Levels and Microbial Contamination in Corn Grits. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  229. Alexandre, A.P.S.; Castanha, N.; Calori-Domingues, M.A.; Augusto, P.E.D. Ozonation of whole wheat flour and wet milling euent: Degradation of deoxynivalenol (DON) and rheological properties. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B Pestic. Food Contam. Agric. Wastes 2017, 52, 516–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Alexandre, A.P.S.; Castanha, N.; Costa, N.S.; Santos, A.S.; Badiale-Furlong, E.; Augusto, P.E.D.; Calori-Dominguesa, M.A. Ozone technology to reduce zearalenone contamination in whole maize flour: Degradation kinetics and impact on quality. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 6814–6821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Santos Alexandre, A.P.; Vela-Paredes, R.S.; Santos, A.S.; Costa, N.S.; Canniatti-Brazaca, S.G.; Calori-Domingues, M.A.; Augusto, P.E.D. Ozone treatment to reduce deoxynivalenol (DON) and zearalenone (ZEN) contamination in wheat bran and its impact on nutritional quality. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2018, 35, 1189–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Shanakhat, H.; Sorrentino, A.; Raiola, A.; Romano, A.; Masi, P.; Cavella, S. Current methods for mycotoxins analysis and innovative strategies for their reduction in cereals: An overview. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 4003–4013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  233. Kalagatur, N.K.; Kamasani, J.R.; Mudili, V. Assessment of detoxification effcacy of irradiation on zearalenone mycotoxin in various fruit juices by response surface methodology and elucidation of its in-vitro toxicity. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  234. Shi, H.; Li, S.; Bai, Y.; Prates, L.L.; Lei, Y.; Yu, P. Mycotoxin contamination of food and feed in China: Occurrence, detection techniques, toxicological effects and advances in mitigation technologies. Food Control 2018, 91, 202–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Gonçalves, A.; Gkrillas, A.; Dorne, J.L.; Dall’Asta, C.; Palumbo, R.; Lima, N.; Battilani, P.; Venâncio, A.; Giorni, P. Pre- and Postharvest Strategies to Minimize Mycotoxin Contamination in the Rice Food Chain. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2019, 18, 441–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Walravens, J.; Mikula, H.; Rychlik, M.; Asamd, S.; Ediagea, E.N.; Di Mavungua, J.D.; Landschoote, A.V.; Vanhaeckef, L.; De Saeger, S. Development and validation of an ultra-high-performance liquidchromatography tandem mass spectrometric method for the simultaneous determination of free andconjugated Alternaria toxins in cereal-based foodstuffs. J. Chromatogr. A 2014, 1372, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  237. Luo, Y.; Liu, X.; Li, J. Updating techniques on controlling mycotoxins—A review. Food Control 2018, 89, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  238. Tarazona, A.; Gómez, J.V.; Mateo, E.M.; Jiménez, M.; Mateo, F. Antifungal effect of engineered silver nanoparticles on phytopathogenic and toxigenic Fusarium spp. and their impact on mycotoxin accumulation. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2019, 306, 108259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. González-Jartín, J.M.; de Castro Alves, L.; Alfonso, A.; Piñeirob, Y.; Vilar, S.Y.; Gomez, M.G.; Osorio, Z.V.; Sainz, M.J.; Vieytes, M.R.; Rivas, J.; et al. Detoxification agents based on magnetic nanostructured particles as a novel strategy for mycotoxin mitigation in food. Food Chem. 2019, 294, 60–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  240. Zhou, Y.; Wu, S.; Wang, F.; Li, Q.; He, C.; Duan, N.; Wang, Z. Assessing the toxicity in vitro of degradation products from deoxynivalenol photocatalytic degradation by using upconversion [email protected] TiO2 composite. Chemosphere 2020, 238, 124648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Chulze, S.N. Strategies to reduce mycotoxin levels in maize during storage: A review. Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2010, 27, 651–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Chaudhari, A.K.; Dwivedy, A.K.; Singh, V.K.; Das, S.; Singh, A.; Dubey, N.K. Essential oils and their bioactive compounds as green preservatives against fungal and mycotoxin contamination of food commodities with special reference to their nanoencapsulation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 25414–25431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Perczak, A.; Jus, K.; Gwiazdowska, D.; Marchwinska, K.; Waskiewicz, A. The Effciency of Deoxynivalenol Degradation by Essential Oils under In Vitro Conditions. Foods 2019, 8, 403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  244. Sanzani, S.M.; Reverberi, M.; Geisen, R. Mycotoxins in harvested fruits and vegetables: Insights in producing fungi, biological role, conducive conditions, and tools to manage postharvest contamination. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 122, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  245. Sánchez-Montero, L.; Córdoba, J.J.; Alía, A.; Peromingo, B.; Núñez, F. Effect of Spanish smoked paprika “Pimentón de La Vera” on control of ochratoxin A and aflatoxins production on a dry-cured meat modelsystem. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2019, 308, 108303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  246. Kollia, E.; Proestos, C.; Zoumpoulakis, P.; Markaki, P. Capsaicin, an inhibitor of Ochratoxin A production by Aspergillus section Nigri strains in grapes (Vitis vinifera L.). Food Addit. Contam. Part. A 2019, 36, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  247. Velluti, A.; Sanchis, V.; Ramos, A.J.; Egido, J.; Marın, S. Inhibitory effect of cinnamon, clove, lemongrass, oregano and palmarose essential oils on growth and fumonisin B1 production by Fusarium proliferatum in maize grain. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2003, 89, 145–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  248. Bullerman, L.B.; Lieu, F.Y.; Seire, A.S. Inhibition of growth and aflatoxin production by cinnamon and clove oils, cinnamic aldehyde and eugenol. J. Food Sci. 1977, 42, 1107–1116. [Google Scholar]
  249. Montes-Belmont, R.; Carvajal, M. Control of Aspergillus flavus in maize with plant essential oils and their components. J. Food Prot. 1998, 61, 616–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  250. Sinha, K.K.; Sinha, A.K.; Prasad, G. The effect of clove and cinnamon oils on growth of and aflatoxin production by Aspergillus flavus. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 1993, 16, 114–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  251. Velluti, A.; Sanchis, V.; Ramos, A.J.; Marın, S. Control of Fusarium verticillioides growth and fumonisin B1 production in maize grain by the addition of cinnamon, clove, lemongrass, oregano and palmarose essential oils. J. Food Sci. 2002, 217, 332–337. [Google Scholar]
  252. Velluti, A.; Marın, S.; Gonzalez, P.; Ramos, A.J.; Sanchis, V. Initial screening for inhibitiory activity of essential oils on growth of Fusarium verticillioides, F. proliferatum and F. graminearum on maize-based agar media. Food Microbiol. 2004, 21, 649–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  253. Paster, N.; Juven, B.J.; Shaaya, E.; Menasherov, M.; Nitzan, R.; Weisslowicz, H.; Ravid, U. Inhibitory effect of oregano and thyme essential oils on moulds and foodborne bacteria. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 1990, 11, 33–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  254. Paster, N.; Menasherov, M.; Ravid, U.; Juven, B. Antifungal activity of oregano and thyme essential oils applied as fumigants against fungi attacking stored grain. J. Food Prot. 1995, 58, 81–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  255. Pattnaik, S.; Subramanyam, V.R.; Kole, C. Antibacterial and antifungal activity of ten essential oils in vitro. Microbios 1996, 86, 237–246. [Google Scholar]
  256. Kanižai Šarić, G.; Klapec, T.; Milaković, Z.; Šarkanj, B.; Pavlović, H. Growth inhibition of Fusarium sp. In livestock feed. Poljoprivreda 2011, 17, 22–27. [Google Scholar]
  257. Hojnik, N.; Cvelbar, U.; Tavˇcar-Kalcher, G.; Walsh, J.L.; Križaj, I. Mycotoxin decontamination of food: Old atmospheric pressure plasma versus “classic” decontamination. Toxins 2017, 9, 151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  258. Wielogorska, E.; Ahmed, Y.; Meneely, J.; Graham, W.G.; Elliott, C.T.; Gilmore, B.F. A holistic study to understand the detoxification of mycotoxins in maize and impact on its molecular integrity using cold atmospheric plasma treatment. Food Chem. 2019, 301, 125281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  259. Basaran, P.; Basaran-Akgul, N.; Oksuz, L. Elimination of Aspergillus parasiticus from nut surface with low pressure cold plasma (LPCP) treatment. Food Microbiol. 2008, 25, 626–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  260. Pittet, A.C. Natural occurrence of mycotoxins in foods and feeds: An update review. Rev. Med. Vet. 1998, 6, 479–492. [Google Scholar]
  261. Zachetti, V.G.L.; Cendoya, E.; Nichea, M.J.; Chulze, S.N.; Ramirez, M.L. Preliminary study on the use of chitosan as an eco-friendly alternative to control Fusarium growth and mycotoxin production on maize and wheat. Pathogens 2019, 8, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  262. Manwar, A.V.; Khandelwal, S.R.; Chaudhari, B.L.; Meyer, J.M.; Chincholkar, S.B. Siderophore production by a marine Pseudomonas aeruginosa and its antagonistic action against phytopathogenic fungi. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2004, 118, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  263. Rane, M.R.; Sarode, P.D.; Chaudhari, B.L.; Chincholkar, S.B. Exploring antagonistic metabolites of established biocontrol agent of marine origin. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2008, 151, 665–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  264. Gohel, V.; Chaudhary, T.; Vyas, P.; Chhatpar, H.S. Isolation and identification of marine chitinolytic bacteria and their potential in antifungal biocontrol. Indian J. Exp. Biol. 2004, 42, 715–720. [Google Scholar]
  265. Yandigeri, M.S.; Malviya, N.; Solanki, M.K.; Shrivastava, P.; Sivakumar, G. Chitinolytic Streptomyces vinaceusdrappus S5MW2 isolated from Chilika lake, India enhances plant growth and biocontrol efficacy through chitin supplementation against Rhizoctonia solani. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 31, 1217–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  266. Kong, Q.; Shan, S.H.; Liu, Q.Z.; Wang, X.D.; Yu, F.T. Biocontrol of Aspergillus flavus on peanut kernels by use of a strain of marine Bacillus megaterium. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2010, 139, 31–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  267. Kong, Q.; Chi, C.; Yu, J.J.; Shan, S.H.; Li, Q.Y.; Li, Q.T.; Bennett, J.W. The inhibitory effects of Bacillus megaterium on aflatoxin and cyclopiazonic acid biosynthetic pathway gene expression in Aspergillus flavus. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2014, 98, 5161–5172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  268. Hernández-Montiel, L.G.; Ochoa, J.L.; Troyo-Diéguez, E.; Larralde-Corona, C.P. Biocontrol of postharvest blue mold (Penicillium italicum Wehmer) on Mexican lime by marine and citrus Debaryomyces hansenii isolates. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2010, 56, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  269. Estrada, R.R.G.; Valle, F.D.J.A.; Sánchez, J.A.R.; Santoyo, M.C. Use of a marine yeast as a biocontrol agent of the novel pathogen Penicillium citrinum on Persian lime. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2017, 29, 114–122. [Google Scholar]
  270. Medina-Córdova, N.; López-Aguilar, R.; Ascencio, F.; Castellanos, T.; Campa-Córdova, A.I.; Angulo, C. Biocontrol activity of the marine yeast Debaryomyces hansenii against phytopathogenic fungi and its ability to inhibit mycotoxins production in maize grain (Zea mays L.). Biol. Control 2016, 97, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  271. Schlingmann, G.; Milne, L.; Williams, D.R.; Carter, G.T. Cell wall active antifungal compounds produced by the marine fungus Hypoxylon oceanicum LL-15G256 II. Isolation and structure determination. J. Antibiot. 1998, 51, 303–316. [Google Scholar]
  272. Kuo, H.C.; Wang, T.Y.; Chen, P.P.; Chen, R.S.; Chen, T.Y. Genome sequence of Trichoderma virens FT-333 from tropical marine climate. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2015, 362, fnv036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  273. Losgen, S.; Schlörke, O.; Meindl, K.; Herbst-Irmer, R.; Zeeck, A. Structure and biosynthesis of chaetocyclinones, new polyketides produced by an endosymbiotic fungus. Eur. J. Org. Chem. 2007, 2007, 2191–2196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  274. Garo, E.; Starks, C.M.; Jensen, P.R.; Fenical, W.; Lobkovsky, E.; Clardy, J. Trichodermanides A and B, cytotoxic modified dipeptides from the marine-derived fungus Trichoderma virens. J. Nat. Prod. 2003, 66, 423–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  275. Gal-Hemed, I.; Atanasova, L.; Komon-Zelazowska, M.; Druzhinina, I.S.; Viterbo, A.; Yarden, O. Marine isolates of Trichoderma spp. As potential halotolerant agents of biological control for arid-zone agriculture. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 5100–5109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  276. Holler, U.; Konig, G.M.; Wright, A.D. Three new metabolites from marine-derived fungi of the genera Coniothyrium and Microsphaeropsis. J. Nat. Prod. 1999, 62, 114–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  277. Wang, L.; Wu, J.; Liu, Z.; Shi, Y.; Liu, J.; Xu, X.; Hao, S.; Mu, P.; Deng, F.; Deng, Y. Aflatoxin B1 degradation and detoxification by Escherichia coli CG1061 isolated from chicken cecum. Front. Pharmacol. 2019, 9, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  278. Abdallah, M.F.; De Boevre, M.; Landschoot, S.; De Saeger, S.; Haesaert, G.; Audenaert, K. Fungal Endophytes Control Fusarium graminearum and Reduce Trichothecenes and Zearalenone in Maize. Toxins 2018, 10, 493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  279. Xia, X.; Zhang, Y.; Li, M.; Garba, B.; Zhang, Q.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, H.; Li, P. Isolation and characterization of a Bacillus subtilis strain with aflatoxin B1 biodegradation capability. Food Control 2017, 75, 92–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  280. Nešić, K.; Habschied, K.; Mastanjević, K. Possibilities for the Biological Control of Mycotoxins in Food and Feed. Toxins 2021, 13, 198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  281. Crane, J.; Gibson, D.; Vaughan, R.; Bergstrom, G. Iturin Levels on Wheat Spikes Linked to Biological Control of Fusarium Head Blight by Bacillus amyloliquefaciens. Biol. Control 2013, 103, 146–155. [Google Scholar]
  282. Dunlap, C.; Bowman, M.; Schisler, D. Genomic analysis and secondary metabolite production in Bacillus amyloliquefaciens AS 43.3: A biocontrol antagonist of Fusarium head blight. Biol. Control 2013, 64, 166–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  283. Palazzini, J.; Ramirez, M.; Torres, A.; Chulze, S. Potential biocontrol agents for Fusarium Head Blight and deoxynivalenol production in wheat. Crop Prot. 2007, 26, 1702–1710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  284. Palazzini, J.M.; Alberione, E.; Torres, A.; Donat, C.; Köhl, J.; Chulze, S. Biological control of Fusarium graminearum sensu stricto, causal agent of Fusarium head blight of wheat, using formulated antagonists under field conditions in Argentina. Biol. Control 2016, 94, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  285. Schisler, D.A.; Khan, N.I.; Boehm, M.J.; Lipps, P.E.; Zhang, S. Selection and evaluation of the potential of choline-metabolizing microbial strains to reduce Fusarium head blight. Biol. Control 2006, 39, 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  286. Zhao, Y.; Selvaraj, J.; Xing, F.; Zhou, L.; Wang, Y.; Song, H.; Tan, X.; Sun, L.; Sangare, L.; Folly, Y.; et al. Antagonistic action of Bacillus subtilis strain sg6 on Fusarium graminearum. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e92486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  287. Khan, M.R.; Doohan, F. Bacterium-mediated control of Fusarium head blight disease of wheat and barley and associated mycotoxin contamination of grain. Biol. Control 2009, 48, 42–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  288. Palazzini, J.M.; Yerkovich, N.; Alberione, E.; Chiotta, M.; Chulze, S. An integrated dual strategy to control Fusarium graminearum sensu stricto by the biocontrol agent Streptomyces sp. RC 87B under field conditions. Plant Gene 2017, 9, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  289. Schisler, D.A.; Core, A.B.; Boehm, M.J.; Horst, L.; Krause, C.; Dunlap, C.A.; Rooney, A.P. Population dynamics of the Fusarium head blight biocontrol agent Cryptococcus flavescens OH 182.9 on wheat anthers and heads. Biol. Control 2014, 70, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  290. Xue, A.G.; Chen, Y.; Voldeng, H.D.; Fedak, G.; Savard, M.E.; Längle, T.; Zhang, J.; Harman, G.E. Concentration and cultivar effects on efficacy of CLO-1 biofungicide in controlling Fusarium head blight of wheat. Biol. Control 2014, 73, 2–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  291. Legrand, F.; Picot, A.; Cobo-Díaz, J.; Chen, W.; Le Floch, G. Challenges facing the biological control strategies for the management of Fusarium Head Blight of cereals caused by F. graminearum. Biol. Control 2017, 113, 26–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  292. Comby, M.; Gacoin, M.; Robineau, M.; Rabenoelina, F.; Ptas, S.; Dupont, J.; Profizi, C.; Baillieul, F. Screening of wheat endophytes as biological control agents against Fusarium head blight using two different in vitro tests. Microbiol. Res. 2017, 202, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  293. Denancé, N.; Sánchez-Vallet, A.; Goffner, D.; Molina, A. Disease resistance on growth: The role of plant hormones in balancing immune response s and fitness costs. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
Table 1. Most common commodities, fungi, and mycotoxins worldwide.
Table 1. Most common commodities, fungi, and mycotoxins worldwide.
CerealWorld RegionMycotoxinFungiSource
WheatEuropeOchratoxin AA. ochraceus, A. carbonarius, A. niger, A. westerdijkiae, A. steynii, P. verrucosum[12]
Central/South America, Europe, North Asia and South-Eastern AsiaZearalenoneF. graminearum, F. culmorum, F. crookwellense
Europe and North AsiaT-2/HT-2 toxinsF. sporotrichioides, F. langsethiae, F. poae
EuropeDeoxynivalenolF. graminearum, F. culmorum
RyeEurope and North AsiaT-2/HT-2 toxinsF. sporotrichioides, F. langsethiae, F. poae
BarleyEuropeOchratoxin AA. ochraceus, A. carbonarius, A. niger, A. westerdijkiae, A. steynii, P. verrucosum
Europe and North AsiaT-2/HT-2 toxinsF. sporotrichioides, F. langsethiae, F. poae
WorldwideDeoxynivalenolF. graminearum, F. culmorum
OatsEurope and North AsiaT-2/HT-2 toxinsF. sporotrichioides, F. langsethiae, F. poae
MaizeCommon in Central/South America, Africa, South-East Asia; Occassional in North America, Europe and North AsiaAflatoxins B1, B2, G1, G2A. flavus, A. parasiticus
EuropeOchratoxin AA. ochraceus, A. carbonarius, A. niger, A. westerdijkiae, A. steynii, P. verrucosum
Central/South America, Europe, North Asia and South-Eastern AsiaZearalenoneF. graminearum, F. culmorum, F. crookwellense
Europe and North AsiaT-2/HT-2 toxinsF. sporotrichioides, F. langsethiae, F. poae
WorldwideFumonisins B1, B2, B3F. verticillioides, F. proliferatum
WorldwideDeoxynivalenolF. graminearum, F. culmorum
Table 2. A short overview of biocontrol methods presented in this review.
Table 2. A short overview of biocontrol methods presented in this review.
Method
Microbiological approachMicroorganismsBacteria [162,163,164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171]
Yeast [172,173,174,175,176,177,178]
Fungi [1,163,179,180]
Commercial agents [181]
Preharvest agronomical strategiesAgro-technical measuresCrop rotation [182,183,184,185]Forecrop [184,186,187,188]
Catch crop [189]
Tillage [190,191]
Fertilization [192,193,194]
Seed and sowing [195,196,197,198,199,200]
Breeding and selection [201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212]
Post harvest Microbiological agentsFungus [213,214,215]
Phisical methodsMoisture adjustement [216,217,218]
UV light and opto-electronic sorting [219]
Cleaning, husking and removing residues [220,221]
Adsorbents [222]
Ozonation [223,224,225,226,227,228,229,230,231]
Radiation [232,233,234,235,236]
Innovative methodsNanoparticles [237,238,239,240]
Essential oils [241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251,252,253,254,255,256]
Cold plasma [257,258,259,260]
Chitosan application [261]
Marine microorganisms [262,263,264,265,266,267]Yeast [268,269,270]
Fungi [271,272,273,274,275,276]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Habschied, K.; Krstanović, V.; Zdunić, Z.; Babić, J.; Mastanjević, K.; Šarić, G.K. Mycotoxins Biocontrol Methods for Healthier Crops and Stored Products. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 348. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7050348

AMA Style

Habschied K, Krstanović V, Zdunić Z, Babić J, Mastanjević K, Šarić GK. Mycotoxins Biocontrol Methods for Healthier Crops and Stored Products. Journal of Fungi. 2021; 7(5):348. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7050348

Chicago/Turabian Style

Habschied, Kristina, Vinko Krstanović, Zvonimir Zdunić, Jurislav Babić, Krešimir Mastanjević, and Gabriella Kanižai Šarić. 2021. "Mycotoxins Biocontrol Methods for Healthier Crops and Stored Products" Journal of Fungi 7, no. 5: 348. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7050348

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop