==== Front Toxins (Basel)Toxins (Basel)toxinsToxins2072-6651MDPI 10.3390/toxins12010024toxins-12-00024ReviewControl of Aflatoxigenic Molds by Antagonistic Microorganisms: Inhibitory Behaviors, Bioactive Compounds, Related Mechanisms, and Influencing Factors Ren Xianfeng 12Zhang Qi 123*Zhang Wen 13https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4340-4836Mao Jin 14Li Peiwu 12345*1 Oil Crops Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Wuhan 430062, China; janetadams@example.net (X.R.); janetadams@example.net (W.Z.); janetadams@example.net (J.M.)2 Key Laboratory of Biology and Genetic Improvement of Oil Crops, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Wuhan 430062, China3 Key Laboratory of Detection for Mycotoxins, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Wuhan 430062, China4 Laboratory of Risk Assessment for Oilseeds Products, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Wuhan 430062, China5 Quality Inspection and Test Center for Oilseeds Products, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Wuhan 430062, China* Correspondence: janetadams@example.net (Q.Z.); janetadams@example.net (P.L.); Tel.: (385)910-4120 (Q.Z.); (385)910-4120 (P.L.); Fax: (385)910-4120 (P.L.)01 1 2020 1 2020 12 1 2395-80-3897 11 12 2019 © 2020 by the authors.2020Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Aflatoxin contamination has been causing great concern worldwide due to the major economic impact on crop production and their toxicological effects to human and animals. Contamination can occur in the field, during transportation, and also in storage. Post-harvest contamination usually derives from the pre-harvest infection of aflatoxigenic molds, especially aflatoxin-producing Aspergilli such as Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus. Many strategies preventing aflatoxigenic molds from entering food and feed chains have been reported, among which biological control is becoming one of the most praised strategies. The objective of this article is to review the biocontrol strategy for inhibiting the growth of and aflatoxin production by aflatoxigenic fungi. This review focuses on comparing inhibitory behaviors of different antagonistic microorganisms including various bacteria, fungi and yeasts. We also reviewed the bioactive compounds produced by microorganisms and the mechanisms leading to inhibition. The key factors influencing antifungal activities of antagonists are also discussed in this review. aflatoxinbiocontrol strategyAspergilluspreventionKey Contribution This review provides a comprehensive summary of biological agents with ability to inhibit aflatoxigenic molds and summarizes the knowledge and recent reports on the mechanisms leading to inhibition. ==== Body 1. Introduction Aflatoxins are the most common contaminants occurring widely in oilseeds and grains. Aflatoxins B1, B2, G1, and G2 are a group of potent hepatotoxic and carcinogenic secondary metabolites produced mainly by Aspergillus section Flavi spp. like A. flavus and A. parasiticus [1,2,3]. Aflatoxigenic molds can cause a decrease in production, a loss of nutritional value, and a diminution of market value of agricultural products, and also cause serious diseases like allergic reactions in humans and animals. Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1), the most toxic and commonly occurring one, has been classified as group Ι human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer [4]. Aflatoxins M1 and M2, which are by-products of the above aflatoxins, may be found in dairy products from animals fed with contaminated feed and are closely related to the safety of dairy food. Physical strategies such as field managements, physical separations, and moisture controls, and chemical strategies (e.g., using fungicides and chemical absorbents) have been applied to control aflatoxin and its producing molds. In most cases, the physical and chemical methods were inefficient, due to a nutritional loss of the processed foods, a difficulty in removing residues of the toxic compounds, or a development of resistant biotypes of pathogens. The biological control has been regarded as a more environmentally friendly and safer method [5,6], which was carried out generally at pre- and/or post-harvest. The post-harvest strategies focus mainly on the removal of aflatoxin [7,8,9,10,11,12]. However, once the agro-foods and feeds are contaminated, the contaminants such as aflatoxins can never be completely removed. Therefore, preventing aflatoxin production and fungal infection is the most efficient strategy. In the past decades, many research studies have historically focused on the biocontrol of aflatoxigenic molds [13,14]. Three main modes of inhibitory actions are involved: antagonists grow rapidly to occupy ecological niche and compete for nutrients and/or living places, which leads to a displacement of pathogens; another involves inhibiting fungal growth, which leads to a reduction of fungal infection and colonization; the third is based on inhibiting aflatoxin biosynthesis. This review explores inhibitory behaviors, bioactive compounds, mechanisms of inhibitory actions, and factors influencing biological activities. 2. Antagonistic Microbes against Aflatoxigenic Strains Various microorganisms including bacteria, fungi such as nontoxigenic Aspergillus, Trichoderma and penicillium spp., and yeast strains have been investigated as potential biocontrol agents against aflatoxigenic strains. As shown in Figure 1, the articles reporting bacterial antagonists were dominant (61%) compared with the articles reporting antagonistic fungi (27%) or yeasts (12%). Additionally, a comprehensive list of all microorganisms (approximately 50 different species) that have been well documented for their anti-aflatoxigenic potential is given in Table 1. Main characteristics and inhibitory behaviors of these antagonists are described as well. 2.1. Bacteria 2.1.1. Bacillus spp. Bacillus spp. are a multifunctional group of bacteria. As shown in Figure 1, 21% of research articles reported Bacillus spp., which were most widely assessed in controlling aflatoxigenic strains. Aflatoxin accumulation in potato dextrose broth was almost totally inhibited by B. megaterium [16]. B. subtilis was also able to inhibit A. parasiticus growth and aflatoxin production by a percentage up to 92% and 100%, respectively [15]. Thus, B. megaterium and B. subtilis showed the highest biocontrol activity, inhibiting the growth of as well as aflatoxin production by aflatoxigenic strains, while B. amyloliquefaciens was also able to reduce A. parasiticus growth as well as degrade aflatoxins B1, B2, G1, and G2 after several days of co-cultivation [53,54]. González et al. [18] demonstrated that B. mojavensis, B. cereus, and B. mycoides isolated from soil had ability to significantly inhibit A. parasiticus growth. Isolates of B. pumilus were also demonstrated with ability to inhibit aflatoxin production [17]. As reviewed by Schallmey et al. [55], Bacillus spp. were intensively assessed as biological agents, probably because they grew rapidly, produced a wide range of antimicrobial compounds, and generally were recognized as safe species. 2.1.2. Pseudomonas spp. It was found that P. fluorescens could reduce AFB1 production by A. flavus in peanut medium at a rate of 99.4% [20], as well as inhibit conidial germination of A. flavus by up to nearly 20% [56]. A known fact is that Pseudomonas is one of the most prevalent genera isolated from soil (plants rhizosphere or nonrhizosphere). Palumbo et al. [19] demonstrated that the chitinolytic P. chlororaphis strains isolated from maize fields and maize rhizospheres could completely inhibit A. flavus growth. Mannaa et al. [21] found that P. protegens strain AS15 isolated from rice grains also significantly inhibited aflatoxin production by and mycelial growth of A. flavus at rates of 82.9% and 68.3%, respectively. Several other Pseudomonas strains were also demonstrated with an ability to completely inhibit the growth of A. flavus in different media [34]. 2.1.3. Lactobacillus spp. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB) are bacteria producing organic acids—mainly lactic acid—by carbohydrate fermentation. In food production, these bacteria are traditionally used to prevent spoilage and increase shelf life of foods. As shown in Table 1, L. plantarum, L. rhamnosus, L. casei, L. fermentum, L. pentosus, L. paraplantarum, and L. delbrueckii subsp. Lactis have been identified as biocontrol agents against aflatoxigenic fungi. Ahlberg et al. [57] demonstrated that LAB strains showed an ability to physically bind aflatoxins. In another study of Ahlberg et al. [26], 171 LAB strains were tested against A. flavus, and the species with the highest antifungal ability was identified as L. plantarum. The genus Lactobacillus, mainly the species L. plantarum, has been widely found to inhibit aflatoxigenic strains in various living environments [22,58,59,60,61]. LAB strains are mainly divided into four genera: Lactobacillus, Lactococcus, Pediococcus, and Leuconostoc. As was reported by Sangmanee and Hongpattarakere [22], the supernatant obtained from L. plantarum culturing broth could inhibit the mycelial growth and aflatoxin production of A. flavus by 100%. L. casei, L. fermentum, L. reuteri, and L. acidophilus were also proved to have an inhibitory effect higher than 80% on Aspergillus niger, Penicillium sp., and Fusarium graminearum [25]. Ahlberg et al. [26] demonstrated that Lactobacillus spp. with high or moderate anti-mycotoxigenic activities were identified as L. pentosus, L. paraplantarum, and L. plantarum. Species of L. delbrueckii subsp. Lactis were also found to completely inhibit aflatoxin G2 production and significantly control A. parasiticus growth [27]. 2.1.4. Streptomyces spp. Streptomyces spp. are gram (+) filamentous bacteria that widely grow in soils and on plants. A Streptomyces strain isolated from peanuts was found to completely inhibit, directly or via secondary metabolites, mycelial growth and conidial germination of A. flavus [62]. Streptomyces strain ASBV-1 was found to be able to reduce the viability of A. parasiticus spores and subsequently, inhibit aflatoxin accumulation in peanut grains [63]. Verheecke et al. [64] reported that several soil-born Streptomyces isolates had a strong bioactivity against aflatoxin B1 and B2 production by A. flavus. Several other Streptomyces species (Table 1) have been evaluated as bioactive agents providing an antagonistic activity against aflatoxigenic isolates. Shakeel et al. [28] demonstrated that culture filtrates and crude extracts of S. yanglinensis could completely inhibit mycelial growth of A. flavus. Studies demonstrated that S. anulatus [29], S. alboflavus [30], and S. roseolus [31] also exerted an effective antifungal activity toward aflatoxigenic strains and other common agricultural crops pathogens. 2.1.5. Other Bacteria Species Serratia marcescens strain JPP1 isolated from peanut hulls is an endophytic bacterium which lives inside the plant tissue and does not cause visible morphological changes. Strain JPP1 exhibited remarkable inhibitory effects on aflatoxin production (rate >98%) and mycelial growth (rate >95%) of A. parasiticus [32]. Stenotrophomonas sp., a soil bacterium, could produce inhibitors against aflatoxin production, but without affecting fungal growth [33]. Nannocystis exedens, a myxobacterium commonly found in soil, had a potential to control the growth of A. flavus and A. parasiticus by lysing pathogens' colony [35]. Palumbo et al. [34] isolated 171 bacteria from California almond orchard samples; apart from the familiar genera Bacillus and Pseudomonas, Burkholderia cepacia, B. pyrrocinia, Delftia acidovorans, D. acidovorans, and Ralstonia paucula were also demonstrated with potential activity against A. flavus growth. Achromobacter xylosoxidans, a gram-negative and catalase-positive bacterium, is already known to have wide biological control abilities [65]. Yan et al. [36] demonstrated that A. xylosoxidans could produce inhibitory substances remarkably inhibiting A. flavus and A. parasiticus growth. According to the current studies, antagonistic bacteria were actually highly effective on aflatoxigenic strains in vitro. However, their colonization in soil and on crops has not been evaluated under field conditions. Due to genetic and environmental differences, it is not easy to bring the bacterial cells to the Aspergilli infection sites. This may be the reason why most of the anti-aflatoxigenic studies are performed only in vitro, and no bacterial agents are already commercialized. 2.2. Fungi 2.2.1. Nontoxigenic Aspergillus spp. A. flavus are variable in respect to aflatoxin-producing ability, and were described into S (small) and L (large) strains on the basis of sclerotial morphological types [66]. On average, S strains produce higher levels of AFB1 with less variation in aflatoxin production [67,68]; L strains are more variable in aflatoxin production and even include nonproducers entirely lacking the ability to produce aflatoxins [69]. Currently, introduction of nontoxigenic A. flavus into fields is the most promising strategy for preventing pre-harvest aflatoxin contamination. The use of nontoxigenic A. flavus to competitively exclude aflatoxigenic strains was first introduced by Cotty and Bayman [70]. As shown in Figure 1, there have been many studies subsequently focusing on nontoxigenic Aspergillus. Prevention of aflatoxin accumulation by inoculation with nontoxigenic A. flavus CT3 and K49 was assessed in a 4year field study [37], with results indicating that the reduction percentages of aflatoxin on southern US corns were 65–94%. Alaniz Zanon et al. [38] also found that the nontoxigenic A. flavus had a higher biocontrol efficacy against aflatoxin accumulation (inhibition rate = 78–90%) in a two-year study in northern Argentina. In addition, nontoxigenic A. flavus isolates were demonstrated with an ability to reduce aflatoxin contamination of maize by a rate higher than 80% in Kenya [71]. Importantly, nontoxingenic A. flavus strains, AF36 (NRRL 18543) and Afla-Guard® (NRRL 21882), have been commercialized for use in groundnut and maize production, respectively, in USA. This biocontrol approach has also been proved to be effective on peanut [72,73], cottonseed [69], and corn [37,74] under field conditions. An application of nontoxigenic A. parasiticus in the field was also able to reduce aflatoxin contamination in storage [39]. Nontoxigenic A. niger strain FS10, isolated from fermented soybean, could not only significantly inhibit A. flavus growth, but also inhibit AFB1 production (rate = 94.5%) [40,75]. A. oryzae, the nontoxigenic domesticated ecotype of A. flavus, is used as a "Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS)" microorganism for food fermentation [76,77]. Alshannaq et al. demonstrated that co-inoculation with A. oryzae and A. flavus on peanuts with a ratio of 1:100 could effectively inhibit AFB1 production [41]. The species of A. clavatus could secrete ribonuclease [78], while Skouri-Gargouri and Gargouri revealed that A. clavatus could inhibit the growth of several plant pathogens such as Fusariuym oxysporum and Aspergillus niger due to the secretion of an antifungal peptide [42]. 2.2.2. Trichoderma spp. Trichoderma spp. comprise a large number of rhizocompetent filamentous strains in soils and root ecosystems. Their potential as fungal biocontrol agents against plant pathogenic fungi has been known for a long time [79]. The majority of Trichoderma isolates used industrially for biological control belong to the species T. harzianum, including strains T22 and T39 [80,81]. Trichoderma species can not only control crop diseases, but also exert beneficial effects on root growth and enhance crop productivity [82]. There have been several Trichoderma species reported showing varying degrees of control of aflatoxigenic strains since last century [79]. T. harzianum and T. viride were proved to be highly antagonistic and inhibit mycelial growth and aflatoxin production of A. flavus by a rate higher than 80% [43]. Evaluation of Trichoderma spp. for biocontrol of pre-harvest seed infection by A. flavus in groundnut was performed by Anjaiah et al. [44], with results indicating that in greenhouse and field experiments, the treatment of seeds with Trichoderma spp. including T. harzianum, T. longibrachiatum, T. viride, and T. auroviride reduced A. flavus populations (as cfu) by a percentage higher than 50%. A known fact is that Trichoderma species are historically a group of the most studied beneficial filamentous fungi. Sarrocco and Vannacci [14] gave a list of commercial bio-pesticides containing 14 different Trichoderma strains that belong to T. harzianum, T. atroviride, T. virens, T. asperellum, T. gamsii, and T. polysporum; however, these species have not been investigated as commercialized products to biocontrol aflatoxigenic molds. 2.2.3. Penicillium spp. Several species of Penicillium are able to grow rapidly in the presence of toxigenic strains [83]. The strain RP42C of P. chrysogenum was reported as antifungal-protein producer with a biological activity against the growth of aflatoxigenic strains on dry-cured ham [45,84]. P. chrysogenum, a fungal starter culture for mold-fermented foods production, is related to P. nalgiovense. Nielsen et al. [85] demonstrated that P. nalgiovense showed a higher inhibitory effect on the growth of the common fungal pathogens. Additionally, Geisen [46] demonstrated that P. nalgiovense had a greater inhibition on the secondary metabolites production of fungal strains. As fungal starter cultures, the antifungal activity of Penicillium species would play an important role in the safety of mold-fermented food. 2.3. Yeast Strains Due to the ability to consume lactic acid in the presence of oxygen, yeast strains have been regarded as deteriorating agents for a long time. Yeast strains are also popular in household because of the ability of leavening dough. Marine yeast Debaryomyces hansenii BCS003 strain can decrease mycelial growth by almost 98% in a radial inhibition assay against Aspergillus strains [47], while native D. hansenii strains were also demonstrated with a significantly antagonistic activity on the growth rate and aflatoxin production of A. parasiticus in meat products [48]. Saccharomyces cerevisiae RC008 and RC016 are strains demonstrated with the ability of inhibiting the growth of and AFB1 production by A. parasiticus under different regimes of water activities, pH values, temperatures, and oxygen availabilities [49]. As shown in Table 1, Kluyveromyces, Pichiaanomala, and Candida maltosa isolates were also demonstrated to have an impact on mycelial growth, conidial germination, or aflatoxin production when interacting with aflatoxigenic Aspergillus strains [48,50,52,86,87,88]. 2.4. A Conclusion of Antagonistic Microbes Many bacteria agents have been demonstrated with an ability to inhibit aflatoxigenic molds; however, none of bacterial agents has been commercialized. At current research status, only nontoxigenic A. flavus NRRL 18543 and NRRL 21882 have been commercialized and applied in fields [72], and Trichoderma species are just showing a high potential to be commercialized for the future use [14]. For yeast strains, however, we need further studies to look for strains with high efficacy. 3. Inhibitory Compounds Produced by Different Antagonistic Microbes Secondary metabolites produced by various microorganisms are high-value natural products, many of which exhibit significant pharmacological properties. The inhibitory compounds discussed here are secondary metabolites with powerful bioactive properties in biological control of aflatoxin-producing fungi. Based on the results obtained in vitro experiments, inhibitory compounds produced by various antagonistic microorganisms and their bioactivities against aflatoxigenic molds are listed in Table 2. These compounds are divided into four different types of substances, including micromolecular organics, organic acids, antibiotics, and enzymes (Figure 2). The following paragraphs describe the producers, anti-aflatoxigenic activities, and main characteristics of these compounds in more detail. 3.1. Antibiotics and Proteases Produced by Bacillus spp. Bacillus species generally have characteristics to produce antimicrobial substances, mainly including lipopeptides, protease antibiotics, and bacteriocins [100]. These structurally diverse compounds exhibit a wide range of antimicrobial activity [101], especially the lipopeptides secreted by Bacillus presenting antifungal activity [102]. Bacillus strains isolated from aquatic environments were evaluated for their antifungal effect on A. flavus and A. carbonarius, producers of AFB1 and ochratoxin A, respectively [89]. Results showed that the lipopeptides (iturin A and surfactin isomers in extracts) produced by Bacillus sp. P1 strain exhibited high anti-Aspergillus activities on mycelial growth, conidial germination, and AFB1 and ochratoxin A production. Veras et al. [89] also analyzed the extracts from supernatants and cell pellets, and results indicated that lipopeptides were extracted mainly from cell-free supernatants. González Pereyra et al. [18] also demonstrated that lipopeptides, the extracellular compounds produced by soil Bacillus strains, were able to almost completely inhibit A. parasiticus growth and AFB1 production. In another report [103], mutants of B. subtilis obtained after varying doses of gamma irradiation could significantly inhibit A. flavus growth and aflatoxin production in pistachio nuts compared with the parental strain, because lipopeptides production of mutants increased. Additionally, Farzaneh et al. [104] reported that cell-free supernatants from B. subtilis had a significant effect on A. flavus spores viability, and the mass spectrometric analysis revealed that surfactin and fengycin were responsible for the biocontrol activity. These studies indicated that fengycin, surfactin, and iturin families of lipopeptides produced by Bacillus species were the dominant compounds potentially reducing Aspergillus spp. growth or aflatoxins production and, generally, these compounds were obtained from cell-free supernatants. Bacillomycin D, a lipopeptide substance produced by B. subtilis, was also demonstrated with abilities of significantly affecting mycelial growth, sporulation, and destabilizing the cell wall and cell membrane of A. flavus [90]. Proteases, especially alkaline proteases, are the well-known products of Bacillus strains. B. subtilis and B. amyloliquefaciens were able to inhibit A. parasiticus growth and showed a good proteolytic activity [15]. Additionally, three peptides of L-Asp-L-Orn (D1O), L-Asp-L-Asn (D1N), and L-Asp-L-Asp-L-Asn (D2N) produced by B. megaterium could significantly inhibit the growth of A. flavus [91]. Another study reported that unknown volatiles produced by B. megaterium could inhibit aflatoxin production, mycelial growth, and conidial germination of A. flavus in rice grains [105]. Overall, we can conclude from these studies that extracellular compounds of Bacillus species were able to inhibit aflatoxigenic molds. The compounds, especially lipopeptides and proteases may be the main effective antifungal factors inhibiting aflatoxin production, sporulation, and conidial germination and reducing mycelial growth. 3.2. Chitinolytic Enzyme Produced by Pseudomonas spp. Akocak et al. [56] demonstrated that the chitinolytic enzyme produced by P. fluorescens could reduce the growth of A. flavus by inducing the morphological changes on conidial germination and mycelial growth. As reviewed by D'Aes et al. [106], biosurfactants such as cyclic lipopeptide and rhamnolipid produced by Pseudomonas spp. were involved in important functions of biocontrol. Phenazines produced by Pseudomonas strains were also major determinants controlling several plant pathogens [107]. However, biological activities of bio-surfactants and phenazines against aflatoxigenic strains have not been investigated. Therefore, speeding up the identification of bioactive compounds could potentially enhance application values of Pseudomonas species. 3.3. Organic Acids and Peptides Produced by Lactobacillus spp. As revealed by Russo et al. [61], Lactobacillus spp. have broad antifungal activities because of the high production of lactic acid. Apart from lactic acid, phenyllactic acid (PLA), hydroxyphenyllactic acid (OH-PLA), and indole lactic acid (ILA) were also found to strongly inhibit aflatoxin-producing fungi [25,92]. Additionally, the antifungal compounds secreted by L. plantarum were investigated against the growth of and aflatoxin production by A. flavus and A. parasiticus, with results indicating that the antifungal compounds obtained from the cell-free supernatant, apart from lactic acid, majorly were 2-butyl-4-hexyloctahydro-1H-indene, oleic acid, palmitic acid, linoleic acid, and 2,4-di-tertbutylphenol [22]. Apart from organic acids, inhibitory peptides produced by L. plantarum were also demonstrated to be effective against A. flavus and A. parasiticus [59,60], while organic acids were dominant, probably associated with their low pH values [61]. 3.4. Micromolecular Organics, Organic Acids, and Enzymes Produced by Streptomyces spp. Streptomyces spp., known to produce over 7500 bioactive compounds including anticancer agents, vitamins, and antibiotic compounds, have a better tolerance to water stress [28]. They usually do not secrete toxic residues that may contaminate environments because of their natural origin. 2-methylisoborneol, the volatile organic compound generated by S. alboflavus, was proved to have an ability of inhibiting A. flavus, Fusarium moniliforme, and Penicillum citrinum in vitro [30]. Aflastatin A, extracted from mycelial cake of Streptomyces sp., was a strong inhibitor of aflatoxin production [93]. Dimethyl trisulfide and Benzenamine, the small molecular organic compounds generated by S. alboflavus, played an important role in controlling aflatoxin production and A. flavus growth [95]. Dimethyl disulfide, the micromolecular volatile organic identified from the volatiles of S. alboflavus, was proved to act as an antagonistic substance against some plant pathogens in vitro [30]. Dioctatin A, an organic acid, produced by Streptomyces spp., was found to strongly inhibit aflatoxin production and conidiation of A. parasiticus [94]. The thermostable endochitinase purified from Streptomyces sp. [96] and the chitinase (Chi242) obtained from the culture supernatant of S. anulatus [29] have been found to inhibit the mycelial growth of A. parasiticus and A. niger, respectively. From these studies, we are able to see out that inhibitory compounds produced by Streptomyces spp. were highly species-specific. As Manivasagan et al. [108] reviewed, Actinomycetes, especially Streptomyces spp., have a tremendous potential to produce various secondary bioactive metabolites. In this case, Streptomyces species definitely have a great potential to be used for the biocontrol of aflatoxigenic fungi. 3.5. Micromolecular Organics and Enzymes Produced by Yeast Strains Yeast strains are increasingly targeted for the production of bioactive substances, especially the budding yeast species Saccharomyces cerevisiae, which has been proven to be a powerful microorganism for heterologous expression of biosynthetic pathways [109]. The biocontrol activity of Pichia anomala WRL-076 was attributed to the production of 2-phenylethanol, which was the major volatile compound affecting the growth, aflatoxin production, and gene expression of A. flavus [51]. Studies also demonstrated that isoamyl acetate and isoamyl alcohol produced by Candida maltosa were able to inhibit the conidial germination of Aspergillus brasiliensis [52]. 4-Hydroxyphenethyl alcohol, 4,4-Dimethyloxazole, and 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid dioctyl ester in the supernatant extracts of Saccharomyces cerevisiae provided the antifungal activity against aflatoxigenic growth and aflatoxins biosynthesis [97]. Tayel et al. [98] demonstrated that Pichia anomala was able to produce β-1,3-glucanase and exo-chitinase, which were suggested as a mode of antifungal action leading to cause hyphal lysis of A. flavus. 3.6. Protease and Extracellular Enzymes Produced by Trichoderma spp. Regarding to Trichoderma species, only a few inhibitory compounds that play roles in their antagonistic interactions with aflatoxingenic fungi were reported. Deng et al. [99] demonstrated that the aspartic protease P6281 secreted by T. harzianum could efficiently inhibit the conidial germination and the growth of A. flavus. Mostafaet al. [43] demonstrated that T. harzianum and T. viride showed a high antagonism and inhibited aflatoxins production of A. flavus by 90%, which were explained partially by the liberation of extracellular enzymes and the production of inhibitory volatile compounds. 3.7. Inhibitory Compounds Produced by the Other Microorganisms Apart from the inhibitory compounds described in the above sections, chitinase produced by Serratia marcescens was able to efficiently degrade fungal cell walls [32]. The antifungal protein PgAFP produced by Penicillium chrysogenum could inhibit the growth of toxigenic molds [84]. Antifungal peptide produced by Aspergillus clavatus was thermostable and exhibited a strong inhibitory activity against mycelial growth of several plant pathogenic fungi [42]. Cyclo (L-Leucyl-L-Prolyl) produced by Achromobacter xylosoxidans was able to inhibit the growth of A. parasiticus, and it also remarkably repressed the transcription of the aflatoxin-biosynthesis related gene aflR [36]. 3.8. A Conclusion of Inhibitory Compounds Approximately 30 different compounds have been found to be bioactive against aflatoxigenic fungi. According to these studies, we identified three deficiencies in the research field that need improvement: (1) the variety of inhibitory compounds is still limited; and (2) all of the inhibitory compounds were tested only in vitro, in which case, it is difficult to relate with the real antagonistic efficacy in vivo because of the diversity of microbes in soils, differences of soil temperature, humidity, and pH, and the genetic and metabolic complexity of biocontrol antagonists; and (3) most, even all of the studies focused only on inhibitory efficiency, however, studies such as the resistance in Aspergillus and interactions among inhibitory compound, pathogen, antagonist, and environment were scarce. These deficiencies could be mirrored by the example of Trichoderma spp. The antagonistic Trichoderma strains have the ability to produce various compounds with antibiotic activity [81]. However, few antibiotic compounds have been identified from Trichoderma spp. for the biocontrol of aflatoxigenic molds. Although Trichoderma species play an important role in biocontrol of plant diseases, frequently enhance root growth, and induce systemic resistance responses of plants [82], the interaction among aflatoxigenic fungi, Trichoderma, soil, and plants has not been elucidated yet. 4. Mechanisms of Inhibitory Actions 4.1. Inhibitory Mechanisms by Antagonistic Bacteria For antagonistic bacteria, their bioactive metabolites play a major role in controlling Aspergillus spp. growth and subsequent aflatoxin production. Inhibitory mechanisms by antagonistic bacteria mainly include (1) lysis of hyphae or spores by destablizing structure and composition of cell wall; (2) probably affecting intracellular activities of mitochondria, cytoplasmic membrane, and nucleus; and (3) down-regulating expression of aflatoxin-synthesis related genes. Illustrations were made as follows: chitinolytic enzymes produced by P. fluorescens reduced the growth of A. flavus by altering the germination pattern of spores [56]; the cell-free supernatant of L. plantarum caused morphological changes in seven-day-old A. flavus and A. parasiticus, because of severe damage to the mitochondria and nucleus, formation of the membrane-bound vesicles, and degeneration of the cytoplasmic membrane [22]; and dioctatin A produced by Streptomyces decreased expression of aflR and brlA (encoding a condition-specific transcription factor) and significantly inhibited the production of norsolorinic acid and sterigmatocystin that were precursors for aflatoxin synthesis [94]. 4.2. Inhibitory Mechanisms by Nontoxigenic Aspergillus spp. Fungal invasion, colonization, and competition between aflatoxigenic and atoxigenic strains of A. flavus have been studied [70,110]. Regarding nontoxigenic Aspergillus spp. as antagonist, two mechanisms are dominant: (1) toxigenic strains are physically excluded by the displacement of nontoxigenic strains during infection; and (2) nontoxigenic strains competed for nutrients that were required for aflatoxin biosynthesis. However, as Ehrlich [111] reviewed, there were a lot of challenges to using nontoxigenic Aspergillus species. Primarily, due in part to inherent diversity of Aspergillus species and genetic complexity, genetic mutations may happen in nontoxigenic Aspergillus spp., which potentially leads atoxigenic strains to mutate to aflatoxigenic strains; therefore, from a long-term security, nontoxigenic Aspergillus strains were also suggested to be cautiously used [112,113,114]. 4.3. Inhibitory Mechanisms by Antagonistic Yeasts How did the antagonistic yeasts act as biological agents to control aflatoxigenic growth and aflatoxin production? That the yeast strain Pichia anomala could efficiently inhibit the growth of and aflatoxin production by A. flavus can be attributed to the production of 2-phenylethanol, which led to remarkable effects on conidial germination and expression of genes necessary for aflatoxin biosynthesis [51], and the production of chitinase and glucanase, which led to hyphal lysis and deterioration [98]. That Debaryomyces hansenii was able to control A. flavus growth was attributed to the production of extracellular compounds and the competition for nutrients and spaces [47]. For Saccharomyces cerevisiae, the production of exochitinase and extracellular secondary metabolites could explain its mode of action for antifungal activity on the growth of A. flavus [97]. Therefore, for yeast strains, possible mechanisms of the inhibitory actions may involve two: (1) inhibiting aflatoxigenic growth by the production of extracellular enzymes and metabolites which lead to spores and hyphal deterioration, and (2) inhibiting aflatoxin production by down-regulating expression of aflatoxin biosynthesis genes. 4.4. Inhibitory Mechanisms by Antagonistic Trichoderma Strains The antagonistic properties of Trichoderma strains are based on the activation of multiple physical and chemical mechanisms. The physical mechanisms included faster growth speed to compete for nutrients and living space, and mycoparasitism mediated by physical contact. Common interactions between antagonistic fungi and pathogens were divided into the following types [79]: 1 = antagonist overgrowing pathogen and pathogen stopped; 1/2 = antagonist overgrowing pathogen but pathogen still growing; 2/1 = pathogen overgrowing antagonist but antagonist still growing; 2 = pathogen overgrowing antagonist and antagonist stopped; 3 = mutual inhibition ≤2mm distance; 4 = extremely mutual inhibition >4mm distance. Calistru et al. [115] discovered only three interaction types between Trichoderma and A. flavus, namely antagonist overgrowing pathogen with growth inhibition of pathogen, pathogen overgrowing antagonist with growth inhibition of antagonist, and mutual inhibition. By a scanning electron microscopical investigation, Calistru et al. [115] revealed that mycoparasitism is not the mechanism of the inhibitory interaction between A. flavus and Trichoderma spp. (T. harzianum and T. viride). Conversely, Mostafa et al. [43] drew a conclusion that the aggressive behavior towards A. flavus by T. harzianum was explained by mycoparasitism. The chemical mechanisms were also involved in producing cell walllytic enzymes and inducing the plant's defense system to resist pathogens [116]. The production of extracellular enzymes was responsible for the inhibitory effect of T. viride on toxigenic A. flavus [43]. T. harzianum actively attached to the toxigenic Aspergillus species followed by enzymatic lysis of the mycelial filaments [117]. Such, mechanisms of the inhibitory actions against the growth of A. flavus by T. harzianum are strains-specific and mainly include (1) faster growth speed to compete for nutrients and living space, (2) mycoparasitism, and (3) the production of extracellular enzymes, deteriorating aflatoxigenic mycelia. However, the research on the mechanism of inhibitory effects on aflatoxin production is still at initial stage. 4.5. A Conclusion of Mechanisms According to all of the above studies, we listed four main mechanisms of inhibitory actions (Figure 3): (1) Physically competing for living spaces and nutrients, (2) destabilizing cell wall structure, (3) affecting intracellular activities of mitochondria, nucleus, and cytoplasmic membrane, and (4) down-regulating expression of aflatoxin-synthesis related genes. Importantly, inhibitory actions are most likely determined by a combination of different mechanisms, not by only one.We also listed some genes that have been analyzed under the treatment of different biocontrol agents (Figure 4). 5. Factors Influencing Antifungal Activities It is a well-known fact that the growth rate of and aflatoxin production by aflatoxigenic strains were strongly influenced by environments, cultural conditions, and nutritional factors. The combined effects of incubation time, temperature, water activity (aw), and CO2 on the growth of and aflatoxin production by A. flavus were studied [119]. Nutritional sources were also demonstrated to have a significant influence on fungal growth and mycotoxin production [120,121]. Additionally, the expression of aflatoxin-synthesis related genes were demonstrated to be highly in relation to changes in water activity and temperature levels [122,123,124]. Similarly, antifungal activities of various biocontrol microbes were also related to these biotic and abiotic factors. Examples are described here below. 5.1. pH Value Studies showed that the bioactivity of L. plantarum was pH-dependent. The low pH was responsible for the highlighted bioactivity of L. plantarum against aflatoxin-producing strains [22,61]. Gerez et al. [25] demonstrated that the antifungal activity of some Lactobacillus strains was lost after the neutralization treatment because the acidic nature of the antifungal metabolites was destroyed. In addition, Saccharomyces cerevisiae RC008 and RC016 showed a great antagonistic activity at pH 4, where strains can highly decrease the growth rate of A. parasiticus [49]. Conversely, the bacterium Bacillus pumilus grew very slightly at pH 4, where it showed the lowest anti-aflatoxigenic activity only with 38% inhibition of aflatoxin production [17]. These studies indicated that the best pH value for different antagonists against aflatoxigenic molds is remarkably species-dependent. 5.2. Temperature and Water Activity Culturing temperature and water activity (aw) are also key factors. The maximum activity of protease P6281 produced by T. harzianum was observed at 40 °C [99]. The appropriate conditions for the growth of Kluyveromyces spp. were 60 min of incubation at 45 °C and 0.95 aw [125], while Penna and Etcheverry [86] demonstrated that Kluyveromyces isolates could impact both A. flavus growth and AFB1 accumulation at a wide range of water activities (0.93–0.99). La Penna et al. [50] found that several Kluyveromyces isolates showed anti-aflatoxigenic activity and inhibitory activity on aflatoxin production at all water activities tested. A notable finding was that the yeast strains of Debaryomyces hansenii could stimulate aflatoxins production by A. parasiticus at water activity of 0.99, whereas significantly reduce aflatoxins janetadams@example.net aw [48]. Therefore, temperature and water activity are also important factors influencing antifungal efficiency of antagonists. 5.3. Other Factors such as Incubation Time, Culturing Medium, and Mutagenesis Furthermore, incubation time is also a key factor affecting the production of anti-aflatoxigenic metabolites. Munimbazi and Bullerman [17] gave an evident proving that the greatest inhibitory activity arose up after 3 and 4 days incubation of Bacillus pumilus, and aflatoxin production was completely inhibited in supernatant obtained only from 3 and 4 day old bacterium. Whipps [79] demonstrated that different media appeared to be related to antifungal behaviors. Afsharmanesh et al. [103] found that a random mutagenesis of Bacillus subtilis could significantly inhibit A. flavus growth and aflatoxin production compared with the parental strain. This shows that mutant study can potentially improve biocontrol activity in inhibiting aflatoxigenic strains. As shown in Figure 5, incubation conditions such as growing period, temperature, water activity, pH values, and nutritional sources could not only influence pathogens', but also antagonists' growth and/or metabolism. Therefore, dynamic growing conditions should be taken into account in performing strategies to biocontrol aflatoxigenic molds and eliminate aflatoxin risk by aflatoxigenic fungi. 6. Perspective and Conclusions The biocontrol strategy for preventing aflatoxigenic fungi has been discussed in this review. It is clear that some microbes, including various bacteria, nontoxigenic Aspergillus, Trichoderma, and yeasts have shown potentials to biocontrol aflatoxigenic molds. The inhibitory compounds that have potential biocontrol effects on aflatoxigenic strains, together with mechanisms and influencing factors of the bioactive actions are also reviewed. The current research status is still not very optimistic, because there are still many aspects needing urgent improvements. The above reviewed research works do, however, suggest that deeper practical works must be conducted to identify effective and environmental biocontrol agents, substantially to reach an advanced stage of application and commercialization. Additionally, a comprehensive and systematic study, covering inhibitory behaviors, mechanisms, factors, and pathogen–antagonist–plant interactions, is also urgently needed. Author Contributions Conceptualization, Q.Z. and P.L.; writing—original draft preparation, X.R., W.Z., and J.M.; writing—review and editing, Q.Z. and P.L.; funding acquisition, P.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding This research was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFE0119900), the Natural Science Foundation of China (31801665), and the Major Project of Hubei Provincial Technical Innovation (2018ABA081). Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Figure 1 Percentages of research articles related to different antagonists of aflatoxigenic fungi. We searched for research articles on the topic of "biocontrol of aflatoxigenic fungi" on Web of Science (http://www.webofknowledge.com). Related research articles account for approximately 150, and each slice of the pie represents a percentage of the articles reporting each sort of microorganisms. Figure 2 Bioactive compounds produced by microorganisms with antagonistic activities against aflatoxigenic molds. These compounds were divided into four different types of substances (micromolecular organics, organic acids, antibiotics, and enzymes). PubChem CID is listed at the end of each molecule. Details such as structures, molecular formula, and chemical and physical properties could be obtained in the following link: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/. Figure 3 Mechanisms of inhibitory actions by antagonistic microorganisms against aflatoxigenic molds. For an inhibitory action, one of the four mechanisms may be dominant, but not the only one; inhibitory actions are most likely determined by a combination of different mechanisms. Figure 4 The genes down-regulated by different biocontrol agents. Different biocontrol agents acted on different aflatoxin synthesis genes which were demonstrated to be down-regulated. For example, Bacillus subtliis and Pseudomonas fluorescens could down-regulate the expressions of Nor-1 and aflR. The clustered genes in aflatoxin biosynthetic pathway were plotted according to reports of Yu et al. [118]. Figure 5 Key factors influencing antifungal activities against aflatoxigenic fungi. These key factors have influences on both baflatoxigenic and antagonists' growth and metabolisms. As a result, the combination of these factors is playing an important role in biocontrol efficacy. toxins-12-00024-t001_Table 1Table 1 Species evaluated for their activities on aflatoxigenic molds. Microorganism Genus Specie Activity References Bacteria Bacillus B. subtilis, B. amyloliquefaciens, B. megaterium, B. mojavensis, B. cereus, B. pumilus Inhibit the growth of A. flavus and A. parasiticus Inhibit aflatoxin production [15] [16] [17,18] Pseudomonas P. fluorescens, P. chlororaphis, P. protegens Inhibit A. flavus growth in grains [19,20,21] Lactobacillus L. plantarum, L. rhamnosus, L. casei, L. fermentum, L. pentosus, L. paraplantarum, L. delbrueckii subsp. Lactis Bind aflatoxin M1 Inhibit aflatoxin production Inhibit fungal growth [22,23,24] [25,26] [27] Streptomyces S. yanglinensis, S. anulatus, S. alboflavus, S. roseolus Inhibit A. flavus growth Inhibit A. flavus growth [28,29] [30,31] Other bacteria Serratia marcescens, Stenotrophomonas sp., Ralstonia paucula, Burkholderia cepacia, Nannocystis exedens, Achromobacter xylosoxidans Biocontrol A. flavus growth Inhibit A. parasiticus growth Inhibit aflatoxin production [32,33] [34] [35,36] Fungi Aspergillus A. flavus, A. parasiticus, A. niger, A. oryzae, A. clavatus Inhibit A. flavus growth Inhibit several plant pathogens [37,38,39,40] [41,42] Trichoderma T. harzianum, T. viride, T. longibrachiatum, Biocontrol A. flavus growth [43,44] Penicillium P. chrysogenum, P. nalgiovense Inhibit aflatoxin production [45,46] Yeast xx Debaryomyces hansenii (marine), D. hansenii (native), Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Kluyveromyces spp., Pichia anomala, Candida maltosa Inhibit several common pathogenic fungi Inhibit mycotoxins production [47,48] [49,50] [51,52] toxins-12-00024-t002_Table 2Table 2 Inhibitory compounds produced by antagonists against aflatoxigenic molds. Antagonists Inhibitory Compounds Main Characteristics of the Compounds References Bacillus spp. Lipopeptides: surfactin, iturin A and fengycin Stable after autoclaving [18,89] Bacillomycin D Completely inhibit A. flavus growth [90] Protease Stable under high alkaline conditions [15] Oligopeptide (L-Asp-L-Orn) Be able to enter into cells of A. flavus [91] P. fluorescens Chitinolytic enzyme Extracellular enzyme [56] Lactobacillus spp. Lactobacillus spp. Lactic acid With 60% antifungal janetadams@example.net mg/mL [22,25] Phenyllactic (PLA) Lose activity after neutralization treatment Hydroxyphenyllactic acid (OH-PLA) Show strong antifungal ability at the lowest concentration of 1 mg/mL [92] Indole lactic acid (ILA) About 1 mg/mL was sufficient to inhibit aflatoxins production by 90% 2-butyl-4-hexyloctahydro-1H-indene, Oleic acid, palmitic acid, linoleic acid and 2,4-di-tertbutylphenol In cell-free supernatant; resistant to sterilization and proteolytic enzymes [22,24] Peptides Completely inhibit A. flavus growth on corn [59] Streptomyces spp. 2-methylisoborneol A volatile organic compound with ability against storage fungi such as F. moniliforme and A. flavus in vitro [30] Aflastatin A Completely inhibit A. parasiticus growth at a concentration of 0.5 μg/mL [93] Dioctatin A Strongly inhibit aflatoxin production [94] Dimethyl trisulfide Completely control A. flavus growth [95] Dimethyl disulfide Affect mycelial growth and sporulation [30] Benzenamine Completely inhibit A. flavus growth at 1 mL/L [95] Chitinase With thermal stability and broad pH stability [29,96] Yeast strains 2-phenylethanol Inhibit conidial germination and aflatoxin production [51] Isoamyl acetate Inhibit the growth of several pathogenic fungi [52] Isoamyl alcohol 4-Hydroxyphenethyl alcohol In cell-free supernatant extract; stable at high temperatures [97] 4,4-Dimethyloxazole 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid dioctyl ester Chitinase With ability to cause hyphal lysis and deterioration [98] β-1,3-glucanase T. harzianum Protease P6281 Stable in pH = 2.5–6.0; with ability to inhibit conidial germination and mycelial growth [99] Serratia marcescens Chitinase With ability to degrade fungal cell walls [32] Penicillium chrysogenum Antifungal protein PgAFP Molecular mass is 6494 Da; belong to small, cysteine-rich, and basic proteins [84] Aspergillus clavatus Antifungal peptide Molecular mass = 5773 Da; with thermostability [42] Achromobacter xylosoxidans Cyclo(L-Leucyl-L-Prolyl) Inhibit aflatoxin production by repressing transcription of aflatoxin-related genes [36] ==== Refs References 1. Giorni P. Magan N. Pietri A. Bertuzzi T. Battilani P. Studies on Aspergillus section Flavi isolated from maize in northern Italy Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007 113 330 395-80-3897/j.ijfoodmicro.2006.09.007 17084935 2. Varga J. Frisvad J.C. Samson R.A. Two new aflatoxin producing species, and an overview of Aspergillus section Flavi Stud. Mycol. 2011 69 57 80 10.3114/sim.2011.69.05 21892243 3. Bennett J.W. Klich M. Mycotoxins Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 2003 16 395-80-3897/CMR.16.3.497-516.2003 12857779 4. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Some Traditional Herbal Medicines, S.M., Naphthalene; Styrene. Some Traditional Herbal Medicines, Some Mycotoxins, Naphthalene and Styrene IARC Monogr. Eval. Carcinog. Risks Hum. 2002 82 1 556 12687954 5. Ji C. Fan Y. Zhao L. Review on biological degradation of mycotoxins Anim. Nutr. 2016 2 127 395-80-3897/j.aninu.2016.07.003 29767078 6. Zhu Y. Hassan Y.I. Watts C. Zhou T. Innovative technologies for the mitigation of mycotoxins in animal feed and ingredients-A review of recent patents Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016 216 19 29 10.1016/j.anifeedsci.(385)910-4120. El-Nezami H. Kankaanpaa P. Salminen S. Ahokas J. Ability of dairy strains of lactic acid bacteria to bind a common food carcinogen, aflatoxin B-1 Food Chem. Toxicol. 1998 36 321 395-80-3897/S0278-6915(97)00160-9 9651049 8. Haskard C.A. El-Nezami H.S. Kankaanpaa P.E. Salminen S. Ahokas J.T. Surface binding of aflatoxin B(1) by lactic acid bacteria Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2395-80-3897 3395-80-3897/AEM.67.7.3086-3091.2001 11425726 9. Gonçalves B.L. Rosim R.E. de Oliveira C.A.F. Corassin C.H. The in vitro ability of different Saccharomyces cerevisiae —Based products to bind aflatoxin B1 Food Control 2015 47 298 395-80-3897/j.foodcont.2014.07.024 10. Wu Q. Jezkova A. Yuan Z. Pavlikova L. Dohnal V. Kuca K. Biological degradation of aflatoxins Drug Metab. Rev. 2009 41 1 7 10.1080/03602530802563850 11. Das A. Bhattacharya S. Palaniswamy M. Angayarkanni J. Aflatoxin B1 degradation during co-cultivation of Aspergillus flavus and Pleurotus ostreatus strains on rice straw 3 Biotech. 2015 5 279 395-80-3897/s13205-014-0228-7 28324293 12. Teniola O.D. Addo P.A. Brost I.M. Farber P. Jany K.D. Alberts J.F. van Zyl W.H. Steyn P.S. Holzapfel W.H. Degradation of aflatoxin B(1) by cell-free extracts of Rhodococcus erythropolis and Mycobacterium fluoranthenivorans sp. nov. DSM44556(T) Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2005 105 111 395-80-3897/j.ijfoodmicro.2005.05.004 16061299 13. Torres A.M. Barros G.G. Palacios S.A. Chulze S.N. Battilani P. Review on pre- and post-harvest management of peanuts to minimize aflatoxin contamination Food Res. Int. 2014 62 11 19 10.1016/j.foodres.2014.02.023 14. Sarrocco S. Vannacci G. Preharvest application of beneficial fungi as a strategy to prevent postharvest mycotoxin contamination: A review Crop. Prot. 2018 110 160 395-80-3897/j.cropro.2017.11.013 15. Siahmoshteh F. Hamidi-Esfahani Z. Spadaro D. Shams-Ghahfarokhi M. Razzaghi-Abyaneh M. Unraveling the mode of antifungal action of Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens as potential biocontrol agents against aflatoxigenic Aspergillus parasiticus Food Control 2018 89 300 395-80-3897/j.foodcont.2017.11.010 16. Kong Q. Chi C. Yu J. Shan S. Li Q. Li Q. Guan B. Nierman W.C. Bennett J.W. The inhibitory effect of Bacillus megaterium on aflatoxin and cyclopiazonic acid biosynthetic pathway gene expression in Aspergillus flavus Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2395-80-3897 5395-80-3897/s00253-014-5632-8 24652062 17. Munimbazi C. Bullerman L.B. Inhibition of aflatoxin production of Aspergillus parasiticus NRRL 2999 by Bacillus pumilus Mycopathologia 1998 140 163 395-80-3897/A:1006832827266 9735015 18. González Pereyra M.L. Martínez M.P. Petroselli G. Erra Balsells R. Cavaglieri L.R. Antifungal and aflatoxin-reducing activity of extracellular compounds produced by soil Bacillus strains with potential application in agriculture Food Control 2018 85 392 395-80-3897/j.foodcont.2017.10.020 19. Palumbo J.D. O'Keeffe T.L. Abbas H.K. Isolation of maize soil and rhizosphere bacteria with antagonistic activity against Aspergillus flavus and Fusarium verticillioides J. Food Prot. 2395-80-3897 1395-80-3897/0362-028X-70.7.1615 17685333 20. Yang X. Zhang Q. Chen Z.Y. Liu H. Li P. Investigation of Pseudomonas fluorescens strain 3JW1 on preventing and reducing aflatoxin contaminations in peanuts PLoS ONE 2017 12 e0178395-80-3897/journal.pone.0178810 28640833 21. Mannaa M. Oh J.Y. Kim K.D. Microbe-mediated control of Aspergillus flavus in stored rice grains with a focus on aflatoxin inhibition and biodegradation Ann. Appl. Biol. 2017 171 376 395-80-3897/aab.12381 22. Sangmanee P. Hongpattarakere T. Inhibitory of multiple antifungal components produced by Lactobacillus plantarum K35 on growth, aflatoxin production and ultrastructure alterations of Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus Food Control 2014 40 224 395-80-3897/j.foodcont.2013.12.005 23. Quattrini M. Bernardi C. Stuknyte M. Masotti F. Passera A. Ricci G. Vallone L. De Noni I. Brasca M. Fortina M.G. Functional characterization of Lactobacillus plantarum ITEM 17215: A potential biocontrol agent of fungi with plant growth promoting traits, able to enhance the nutritional value of cereal products Food Res. Int. 2018 106 936 944 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.01.074 29580007 24. Elsanhoty R.M. Salam S.A. Ramadan M.F. Badr F.H. Detoxification of aflatoxin M1 in yoghurt using probiotics and lactic acid bacteria Food Control 2014 43 129 395-80-3897/j.foodcont.2014.03.002 25. Gerez C.L. Torres M.J. de Valdez G.F. Rollan G. Control of spoilage fungi by lactic acid bacteria Biol. Control 2013 64 231 395-80-3897/j.biocontrol.2012.10.009 26. Ahlberg S. Joutsjoki V. Laurikkala S. Varmanen P. Korhonen H. Aspergillus flavus growth inhibition by Lactobacillus strains isolated from traditional fermented Kenyan milk and maize products Arch. Microbiol. 2017 199 457 395-80-3897/s00203-016-1316-3 27816987 27. Ghanbari R. Molaee Aghaee E. Rezaie S. Jahed Khaniki G. Alimohammadi M. Soleimani M. Noorbakhsh F. The inhibitory effect of lactic acid bacteria on aflatoxin production and expression of aflR gene in Aspergillus parasiticus J. Food Saf. 2018 38 10.1111/jfs.12413 28. Shakeel Q. Lyu A. Zhang J. Wu M. Li G. Hsiang T. Yang L. Biocontrol of Aspergillus flavus on Peanut Kernels Using Streptomyces yanglinensis 3-10 Front. Microbiol. 2018 9 1395-80-3897/fmicb.2018.01049 29875755 29. Mander P. Cho S.S. Choi Y.H. Panthi S. Choi Y.S. Kim H.M. Yoo J.C. Purification and characterization of chitinase showing antifungal and biodegradation properties obtained from Streptomyces anulatus CS242 Arch. Pharm. Res. 2016 39 878 395-80-3897/s12272-016-0747-3 27215829 30. Wang C. Wang Z. Qiao X. Li Z. Li F. Chen M. Wang Y. Huang Y. Cui H. Antifungal activity of volatile organic compounds from Streptomyces alboflavus TD-1 FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2013 341 45 51 10.1111/1574-6968.12088 23351181 31. Caceres I. Snini S.P. Puel O. Mathieu F. Streptomyces roseolus , A Promising Biocontrol Agent Against Aspergillus flavus , the Main Aflatoxin B1 Producer Toxins 2018 10 395-80-3897/toxins10110442 30380704 32. Wang K. Yan P.S. Cao L.X. Ding Q.L. Shao C. Zhao T.F. Potential of chitinolytic Serratia marcescens strain JPP1 for biological control of Aspergillus parasiticus and aflatoxin BioMed Res. Int. 2013 2013 397395-80-3897/2013/397142 23865052 33. Jermnak U. Chinaphuti A. Poapolathep A. Kawai R. Nagasawa H. Sakuda S. Prevention of aflatoxin contamination by a soil bacterium of Stenotrophomonas sp. that produces aflatoxin production inhibitors Microbiology 2013 159 902 912 10.1099/mic.0.065813-0 23449921 34. Palumbo J.D. Baker J.L. Mahoney N.E. Isolation of bacterial antagonists of Aspergillus flavus from almonds Microb. Ecol. 2006 52 45 52 10.1007/s00248-006-9096-y 16767519 35. Taylor W.J. Draughon F.A. Nannocystis exedens : A potential biocompetitive agent against Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus J. Food Prot. 2395-80-3897 1395-80-3897/0362-028X-64.7.1030 11456188 36. Yan P.S. Song Y. Sakuno E. Nakajima H. Nakagawa H. Yabe K. Cyclo(L-leucyl-L-prolyl) produced by Achromobacter xylosoxidans inhibits aflatoxin production by Aspergillus parasiticus Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2395-80-3897 7395-80-3897/AEM.70.12.7466-7473.2004 15574949 37. Abbas H.K. Zablotowicz R.M. Bruns H.A. Abel C.A. Biocontrol of aflatoxin in corn by inoculation with non-aflatoxigenic Aspergillus flavus isolates Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2007 16 437 395-80-3897/09583150500532477 38. Alaniz Zanon M.S. Barros G.G. Chulze S.N. Non-aflatoxigenic Aspergillus flavus as potential biocontrol agents to reduce aflatoxin contamination in peanuts harvested in Northern Argentina Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2016 231 63 68 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.05.016 27220011 39. Dorner J.W. Cole R.J. Effect of application of nontoxigenic strains of Aspergillus flavus and A-parasiticus on subsequent aflatoxin contamination of peanuts in storage J. Stored Prod. Res. 2002 38 329 395-80-3897/S0022-474X(01)00035-2 40. Xu D. Wang H. Zhang Y. Yang Z. Sun X. Inhibition of non-toxigenic Aspergillus niger FS10 isolated from Chinese fermented soybean on growth and aflatoxin B1 production by Aspergillus flavus Food Control 2013 32 359 395-80-3897/j.foodcont.2012.12.013 41. Alshannaq A.F. Gibbons J.G. Lee M.K. Han K.H. Hong S.B. Yu J.H. Controlling aflatoxin contamination and propagation of Aspergillus flavus by a soy-fermenting Aspergillus oryzae strain Sci. Rep. 2018 8 16395-80-3897/s41598-018-35246-1 30442975 42. Skouri-Gargouri H. Gargouri A. First isolation of
{'source': 'PubMedDataset'}