Skip to main content

Molecular identification of three entomopathogenic fungi infecting the brown plant hopper pest in Indonesia

Abstract

Background

Brown plant hopper (Nilaparvata lugens Stal.) a very damaging pest to rice crops. One of the efforts to control it is the use of entomopathogenic fungi (EPF). Three fungal local isolates found in Indonesia were effective in controlling the brown plant hopper pest. This study aimed to molecularly identify the 3 fungal isolates. Molecular identification is very important to get the exact identity of these fungi. The accuracy of EPF identification will greatly determine the success of control. Molecular identification is based on a partial genetic analysis of the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) locus of ribosomal fungal DNA.

Result

Morphology of the local isolates named J22 and J60 were identified as Paecilomyces sp., while the isolate J34 was identified as Beauveria sp. The results of molecular identification of the isolates J22 and J60 were identified as the fungi Lecanicillium saksenae and Simplicillium sp., while isolate J34 was identified as Myrothecium sp. The results of literature search showed that the 3 fungi have never been previously reported to infect the brown plant hopper.

Conclusion

In Indonesia, 3 types of EPF, namely L. saksenae, Simplicillium sp., and Myrothecium sp., were found having the potential to control the brown plant hopper pest.

Background

Brown planthopper (BPH) Nilaparvata lugens is a major insect pest of rice that causes 20–80% yield loss through direct and indirect damage. The typical damage caused by BPH is drying of plants as if burning (hopperburn) (Balachiranjeevi et al. 2019). BPH can also transmit grassy stunt and ragged stunt viruses (Helina et al. 2019).

The frequency of BPH infestation is increasing frequently in developing Asian countries due to the killing of its natural enemies because of the use of synthetic chemical insecticides (Minarni et al. 2018). Entomopathogenic fungi (EPF) are fungi that can infect and kill insects (Litwin et al. 2020). The EPF that have been widely researched and known to be effective for controlling BPH pests are B. bassiana (Sumikarsih et al. 2019) and Metarhizium sp. (Chinniah et al. 2016). However, in their implementation in the field, the use of EPF to control BPH pests still has many weaknesses. After application in the field, insect pathogens are exposed to various abiotic stresses such as temperature and humidity (Hsia et al. 2014), UV radiation (Shafighi et al. 2014), and edaphic factors (Klingen et al. 2015).

In addition to biotic stress, the effectiveness of EPF in controlling insect pests is influenced by the diversity of varieties or strains or types of them. EPF have large genetic variations among different isolates. The pathogenicity, virulence, enzymatic characteristics, and DNA also varied among different isolates of different insects. The origin of the isolate affects the virulence diversity of the fungus against the host insect, due to the type or race or strain of the fungus (Chen et al. 2017a, b).

The results of previous studies have reported 3 effective fungal isolates to control the brown plant hopper pest. The 3 isolates caused 70–80% mortality within 3.43–4.87 days. The 3 isolates were Pasir Kulon (J22), Cipete (J34), and Papringan (J60). According to morphological characteristics, isolates J22 (Pasir Kulon) and J60 (Papringan) were identified as Paecilomyces sp., while J34 (Cipete) isolate was identified as Beauveria sp. (Minarni et al. 2020).

Accuracy of identification is very important in the use of EPF for insect pest control. Identification based on morphological characters cannot be used to distinguish fungi to the species level so it is necessary to identify them molecularly (Imoulan et al. 2017). This research aimed to precisely identify the 3 previously mentioned EPF isolates that attack the brown plant hoppers.

Methods

Identification process

Fungal isolates J22 (Pasir Kulon), J34 (Cipete), and J60 (Papringan) were identified molecularly based on a partial genetic analysis on the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) locus of ribosomal DNA of fungi. Fungal isolates that will be identified previously were grown in potato dextrose broth (PDB) liquid media. After being incubated for 72 h, the fungal mycelia were harvested, using sterile filter paper and washed with sterile distilled water. The fungal mycelia were crushed in a sterile mortar by a sterile grinder and liquid nitrogen was added. Half a gram of dry fungal biomass was transferred to a 1.5-ml micro-tube containing 600 μl of cetyl trimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) buffer solution. Afterwards, the tube was shaken out and incubated at 65 °C for 30 min, then incubated in ice for 5 min. A mixture of chloroform and isoamyl alcohol with a ratio of 24:1 of 600 μl was added to the tube. The tubes were then centrifuged at 4 °C for 10 min at a speed of 25,000×g. The supernatant was transferred to a new tube and added with 0.1× volume of 2M NaOAc pH 5.2 and 3× volume of ethanol then incubated at − 20 °C for 2 h.

Fungal DNA pellets were obtained by centrifugation at 25,000×g at 4 °C for 25 min. The fungal DNA pellets were washed by 500 μl of 70% ethanol, then centrifuged at 25,000×g at 4 °C for 5 min. The fungal DNA pellets were dried in an airtight chamber for 5 min, then dissolved in 0.2× volume of RNAse and 30 μl of sterile TE (TrisHCl 10 mM, pH 7.4, EDTA 1 mM) buffer and then incubated at 37 °C for 10 min and 70 °C for 10 min.

Extraction of fungal DNA was done using Nucleon PhytoPure reagent kit (Amersham LIFE SCIENCE, USA). PCR amplification was at ITS, using ITS Primer 4: 5′-TCC TCC GCT TAT TGA TAT GC-3′ and ITS Primer 5: 5′-GGA AGT AAA AGT CGT AAC AAG G-3′ (White et al. 1990). DNA amplification was carried out by making a volume of 30 μl containing 10.5 μl of alkaline free water, 15 μl 2× PCR mastermix (Promega), 0.75 μl and 10 pmol respectively of primer ITS 4 and ITS 5 and 3 μl (about 250 ng/μl) DNA template. The amplification reaction was carried out in 35 cycles as follows: pre-denaturation at 95 °C for 15 min, denaturation at 95 °C for 30 min, heating (annealing) at 55 °C for 30 s, lengthening at 72 °C for 1.5 min, re-extension at 72 °C for 5 min. and lastly stored at 25 °C for 10 min.

Purification of PCR products was carried out by using Polyethilen Glycol (PEG) precipitation method (Hiraishi et al. 1995) and continued with a sequencing cycle. The results of sequencing cycle were purified again, using the ethanol purification method. Analysis of nitrogen base sequence readings was done using an automated DNA sequencer (ABI PRISM 3130 Genetic Analyzer) (Applied Biosystems). The raw data resulting from the sequencing was then trimmed and assembled, using the BioEdit program (http://www.mbio.ncsu.edu/BioEdit/bioedit.html). Sequence data that was assembled was then carried out in BLAST with genomic data that was registered at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/BLAST) to determine taxon or species that have the greatest homology/similarity and molecularly.

Results

Morphological identification

Fungal isolates, isolated from brown plant hoppers, were infected by EPF. Fungi were purified and cultured on potato dextrose agar (PDA) media. The results of the observation on morphological characteristics, the isolates J22 (Pasir Kulon) and J60 (Papringan) were identified as Paecilomyces sp. while J34 (Cipete) isolate was identified as Beauveria sp. (Minarni et al. 2020). The morphological characters of each EPF isolate (J22, J34 and J60) are presented in (Table 1 and Figs. 1, 2, and 3).

Table 1 Morphological characteristics of entomopathogenic fungi J22, J34, and J60 isolates
Fig. 1
figure1

a Colony of 8 days old Pasir Kulon (J22) isolate. b Paecilomyces sp. conidia (Minarni et al. 2020). c Paecilomyces lilacinus conidia (Dong et al. 2016)

Fig. 2
figure2

a Colony of 8 days old Cipete (J34) isolate. b Beauveria sp. conidia (Minarni et al. 2020). c Beauveria bassiana conidia (Nuraida and Hasyim 2009)

Fig. 3
figure3

a Pure cultures of 8 days old Papringan isolate (J60). b Paecilomyces sp. conidia (Minarni et al. 2020). c Paecilomyces javanicus conidia (Dong et al. 2016)

Molecular identification

The results of the ITS rDNA sequencing of fungal isolates J22, J34, and J60 are as follows:

  1. 1.

    ITS rDNA isolate sequence

    1. (a)

      Pasir Kulon_ITS4

1 TCACGTTCAG AAAGTGGGGT GTTTTACGGC GTGGCCACGT CGGGGTTCCG
51 GTGCGAGGTT GGATTACTAC GCAGAGGTCG CCGCGGACGG GCCGCCACTC
101 CATTTCGGGG CCGGCGGTAT GCTGCCGGTC CCCAACGCCG ATTTCCCCAA
151 AGGGAAGTCG AGGGTTGAAA TGACGCTCGA ACAGGCATGC CCGCCAGAAT
201 GCTGGCGGGC GCAATGTGCG TCAAAGATTC GATGATTCAC TGAATTCTGC
251 AATTCACATT ACTTATCGCA TTTCGCTGCG TTCTTCATCG ATGCCAGAAC
301 CAAGAGATCC GTTGTTGAAA GTTTTTGATTC ATTTGTTTTG CCTTGCGGCG
351 GATTCAGAAG ATACTCATGA TACAAAAGAG TTTGGTGGTC TCCGGCGGCC
401 GCCTGAGTCC GGGCCGCGGG CGGCGCTAGG CCGTCCGGAC GCCGGGGCGA
451 GTCCGCCGAA GCAACATCTT GGTATGTTCA CATAAGGGTT TGGGAGTTGT
501 AAACTCTGTA ATGATCCCTC CGCTGGTTCA CCAACGGAGA CCTTGTTAC
  1. (b)

    Pasir Kulon_ITS5

1 GTTGCTTCGG CGGACTCGCC CCGGCGTCCG GACGGCCTAG CGCCGCCCGC
51 GGCCCGGACT CAGGCGGCCG CCGGAGACCA CCAAACTCTT TTGTATCATG
101 AGTATCTTCT GAATCCGCCG CAAGGCAAAA CAAATGAATC AAAACTTTCA
151 ACAACGGATC TCTTGGTTCT GGCATCGATG AAGAACGCAG CGAAATGCGA
201 TAAGTAATGT GAATTGCAGA ATTCAGTGAA TCATCGAATC TTTGAACGCA
251 CATTGCGCCC GCCAGCATTC TGGCGGGCAT GCCTGTTCGA GCGTCATTTC
301 AACCCTCGAC TTCCCTTTGG GGAATTCGGC GTTGGGGGAC CGGCAGCATA
351 CCGCCGGCCC CGAAATGGAG TGGCGGCCCG TCCGCGGCGA CCTCTGCGTA
401 GTAATCCAAC CTCGCACCGG AACCCCGACG TGGCCACGCC GTAAAACACC
451 CCACTTTCTG AACGTTGACC TCGGATCAGG TAGGAATACC CGCTGAACTT
501 AA     
  1. (c)

    Contig-PasirKulon

1 GTAACAAGGT CTCCGTTGGT GAACCAGCGG AGGGATCATT ACAGAGTTTA
51 CAACTCCCAA ACCCTTATGT GAACATACCA AGATGTTGCT TCGGCGGACT
101 CGCCCCGGCG TCCGGACGGC CTAGCGCCGC CCGCGGCCCG GACTCAGGCG
151 GCCGCCGGAG ACCACCAAAC TCTTTTGTAT CATGAGTATC TTCTGAATCC
201 GCCGCAAGGC AAAACAAATG AATCAAAACT TTCAACAACG GATCTCTTGG
251 TTCTGGCATC GATGAAGAAC GCAGCGAAAT GCGATAAGTA ATGTGAATTG
301 CAGAATTCAG TGAATCATCG AATCTTTGAA CGCACATTGC GCCCGCCAGC
351 ATTCTGGCGG GCATGCCTGT TCGAGCGTCA TTTCAACCCT CGACTTCCCT
401 TTGGGGAAAT CGGCGTTGGG GGACCGGCAG CATACCGCCG GCCCCGAAAT
451 GGAGTGGCGG CCCGTCCGCG GCGACCTCTG CGTAGTAATC CAACCTCGCA
501 CCGGAACCCC GACGTGGCCA CGCCGTAAAA CACCCCACTT TCTGAACGTT
551 GACCTCGGAT CAGGTAGGAA TACCCGCTGA ACTTAA  
  1. (d)

    Cipete_ITS4

1 CGGCAGGGGC TCCGTCCGCT TCTCCCTATG CGGAATATCA CTACTTCCGC
51 AGGGGAGGCC ACGACGGGTC CGCCACTAGA TTTAGGGGCC GGCCGTCCCT
101 CGCGGGCGCT GGCCGATCCC CAACACCACG CCCTAGGGGC ATGAGGGTTG
151 AAATGACGCT CAGACAGGCA TGCCCGCCAG AATACTGGCG GGCGCAATGT
201 GCGTTCAAAG ATTCGATGAT TCACTGAATT CTGCAATTCA CATTACTTTT
251 CGCATTTCGC TGCGTTCTTC ATCGATGCCA GAACCAAGAG ATCCGTTGTT
301 GAAAGTTTTT ATTTATTTGT AAAAACGACT CAGAAGATTC TCAGTAAAAC
351 AAGAGTTAAG GTCCCCCGGC GGCCGCCTGG ATCCGGGGCA CGCAAGGCGC
401 CCGGGGCGAT CCGCCGAAGC AACGATAGGT ATGTTCACAT GGGTTTGGGA
451 GTTGTAAACT CGGTAATGAT CCCTCCGCTG GTTCACCAAC GGA
  1. (e)

    Cipete_ITS5

1 TCGTTGCTTC GGCGGATCGC CCCGGGCGCC TTTGCGTGCC CCGGATCCAG
51 GCGGCCGCCG GGGGACCTTA ACTCTTGTTT TTACTGAGAA TCTTCTGAGT
101 CGTTTTTACA AATAAATAAA AACTTTCAAC AACGGATCTC TTGGTTCTGG
151 CATCGATGAA GAACGCAGCG AAATGCGAAA AGTAATGTGA ATTGCAGAAT
201 TCAGTGAATC ATCGAATCTT TGAACGCACA TTGCGCCCGC CAGTATTCTG
251 GCGGGCATGC CTGTCTGAGC GTCATTTCAA CCCTCATGCC CCTAGGGCGT
301 GGTGTTGGGG ATCGGCCAGC GCCCGCGAGG GACGGCCGGC CCCTAAATCT
351 AGTGGCGGAC CCGTCGTGGC CTCCCCTGCG AAGTAGTGAT ATTCCGCATA
401 GGAGAGCGAC GAGCCCCTGC CGTTAAACCC CCAACTTTCT CAGGTTGACC
451 TCAGATCAGG TAGGAATACC CGCTGAACTT A  
  1. (f)

    Contig-Cipete

1 TCCGTTGGTG AACCAGCGGA GGGATCATTA CCGAGTTTAC AACTCCCAAA
51 CCCATGTGAA CATACCTATC GTTGCTTCGG CGGATCGCCC CGGGCGCCTT
101 TGCGTGCCCC GGATCCAGGC GGCCGCCGGG GGACCTTAAC TCTTGTTTTT
151 ACTGAGAATC TTCTGAGTCG TTTTTACAAA TAAATAAAAA CTTTCAACAA
201 CGGATCTCTT GGTTCTGGCA TCGATGAAGA ACGCAGCGAA ATGCGAAAAG
251 TAATGTGAAT TGCAGAATTC AGTGAATCAT CGAATCTTTG AACGCACATT
301 GCGCCCGCCA GTATTCTGGC GGGCATGCCT GTCTGAGCGT CATTTCAACC
351 CTCATGCCCC TAGGGCGTGG TGTTGGGGAT CGGCCAGCGC CCGCGAGGGA
401 CGGCCGGCCC CTAAATCTAG TGGCGGACCC GTCGTGGCCT CCCCTGCGGA
451 AGTAGTGATA TTCCGCATAG GGAGAAGCGG ACGGAGCCCC TGCCGTTAAA
501 CCCCCAACTT TCTCAGGTTG ACCTCAGATC AGGTAGGAAT ACCCGCTGAA
551 CTTAA     
  1. (g)

    Papringan_ITS4

1 TAGTTGGGTG TTTTACGGCG TGGCCGCTTC GATTTTCCCA GTGCGAGGTA
51 AGTTACTACG CAGAGGTCGC CTCGAAGGGC CGCCACTGAA TTTCGGGGGC
101 GGCGTCCCAC GCCCGGAGGC GCGGGGCAGT CTGCCGGTCC CCAACACCGG
151 GCCGTCTTCC GAAGAATCGG GCCCGAGGGT TGAAATGACG CTCGAACAGG
201 CATGCCCGCC AGAATGCTGG CGGGCGCAAT GTGCGTTCAA AGATTCGATG
251 ATTCACTGAA TTCTGCAATT CACATTACTT ATCGCATTTC GCTGCGTTCT
301 TCATCGATGC CAGAACCAAG AGATCCGTTG TTGAAAGTTT TGATTCATTT
351 GTTTTTTGCC TTTCGGCCAC TCAGATAATG CTGTAAAAAC AATAAGAGTT
401 TGATACCCCC GGCAGCGCCG GAGCGCCGCC GAAGCAACAA GTGGTAAGTT
451 CACATAGGGT TTGGGAGTTG AATAAACTCG ATAATGATCC CTCCGCTGGT
501 TCACCAACGG A    
  1. (h)

    Papringan_ITS5

1 CCACTTGTTG CTTCGGCGGC GCTCCGGCGC TGCCGGGGGT ATCAAACTCT
51 TATTGTTTTT ACAGCATTAT CTGAGTGGCC GAAAGGCAAA AAACAAATGA
101 ATCAAAACTT TCAACAACGG ATCTCTTGGT TCTGGCATCG ATGAAGAACG
151 CAGCGAAATG CGATAAGTAA TGTGAATTGC AGAATTCAGT GAATCATCGA
201 ATCTTTGAAC GCACATTGCG CCCGCCAGCA TTCTGGCGGG CATGCCTGTT
251 CGAGCGTCAT TTCAACCCTC GGGCCCGATT CTTCGGAAGA CGGCCCGGTG
301 TTGGGGACCG GCAGACTGCC CCGCGCCTCC GGGCGTGGGA CGCCGCCCCC
351 GAAATTCAGT GGCGGCCCTT CGAGGCGACC TCTGCGTAGT AACTTACCTC
401 GCACTGGGAA AATCGAAGCG GCCACGCCGT AAAACACCCA ACTATTTTAA
451 GGTTGACCTC GAATCAGGTA GGACTACCCG CTGAACTTAA  
  1. (i)

    Contig-Papringan

1 TCCGTTGGTG AACCAGCGGA GGGATCATTA TCGAGTTTAT TCAACTCCCA
51 AACCCTATGT GAACTTACCA CTTGTTGCTT CGCGGGCGCT CCGGCGCTGC
101 CGGGGGTATC AAACTCTTAT TGTTTTTACA GCATTATCTG AGTGGCCGAA
151 AGGCAAAAAA CAAATGAATC AAAACTTTCA ACAACGGATC TCTTGGTTCT
201 GGCATCGATG AAGAACGCAG CGAAATGCGA TAAGTAATGT GAATTGCAGA
251 ATTCAGTGAA TCATCGAATC TTTGAACGCA CATTGCGCCC GCCAGCATTC
301 TGGCGGGCAT GCCTGTTCGA GCGTCATTTC AACCCTCGGG CCCGATTCTT
351 CGGAAGACGG CCCGGTGTTG GGGACCGGCA GACTGCCCCG CGCCTCCGGG
401 CGTGGGACGC CGCCCCCGAA ATTCAGTGGC GGCCCTTCGA GGCGACCTCT
451 GCGTAGTAAC TTACCTCGCA CTGGGAAAAT CGAAGCGGCC ACGCCGTAAA
501 ACACCCAACT ATTTTAAGGT TGACCTCGAA TCAGGTAGGA CTACCCGCTG
551 AACTTAA     

Discussion

Based on the results of the sequences, isolate J22 showed (99.83%) similarity to the L. saksenae strains GFRS14 and L. saksenae isolate Ecu121. Isolate J35 had a similarity with the sequences Myrothecium sp. F129 and Myrothecium sp. 1 TMS-2011 amounted to 98.82 and 98.93%, while isolate J60 had 99.10% similarities to the sequence Simplicillium sp. LCM 845.01 and 98.92% with Simplicillium sp. KYK00024 sequence (Table 2).

Table 2 Results of the nearest fungi taxon BLAST homology ITS1, 5.8S, and ITS2 of rDNA in NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/)

EPF isolates that showed high phylogenetic relationship and had a similarity value of 28S rDNA sequence of more than 99% with the reference species that could be expressed as one species. Ribosomal DNA sequences are used to identify and determine the phylogenetic relationships of organisms to taxa species (Bich et al. 2021). Based on the concept of phylogenetic species, it is stated that an organism is in one species when the difference in DNA sequences is between 0.2 and 1% (Shenoy et al. 2007). According to Henry et al. (2000) isolates, which have a similarity value of 100% can be stated as the same strain and a similarity value of 99% is stated as the same species, while the similarity value of 89–99% belongs to the same genus.

The similarity between 99 and 100% indicated that isolates J22, J34, and J60 each had the same chromosome number, genome size, and gene function as L. saksenae strain GFRS14 and L. saksenae strains isolate Ecu121, Myrothecium sp. F129, and Myrothecium sp. 1 TMS-2011 and Simplicillium sp. LCM 845.01 and Simplicillium sp. KYK00024, respectively.

The identification results based on morphological characters turned out to be different from molecular identification. Accuracy of identification is very important in the use of EPF for insect pest control. Identification based on morphological characters cannot be used as a definite reference. The genera Lecanicillium, Simplicillium, Beauveria, and Isaria have similar morphological characters, so that molecular identification is needed to determine the species certainty of EPF found in Banyumas Regency, Central Java Province, Indonesia. According to Lim et al. (2014) of the genus Lecanicillium, Simplicillium (both previously Verticillium spp.), Beauveria and Isaria belong to family Cordycipitaceae. According to Chen et al. (2016), the genus Myrothecium belongs to family Stachybotryaceae and has a worldwide distribution. Species in this genus were previously classified based on the asexual morphology, especially the characters of conidia and conidiophores. Morphology-based identification alone is imprecise because there are few characters to distinguish between species in the genus and, therefore, molecular sequence data are important in species identification.

Simplicillium sp. is one of the dominant genera of symbiont fungi in unfertilized brown planthopper eggs. The other 3 genera are Microdochium, Fusarium, and Cladosporium (Shentu et al. 2020). One of the species of the genus Simplicillium is S. lanosoniveum. The fungi belong to this genus are known as mycoparasites. However, silkworms (Bombyx mori) inoculated with the fungus isolate S. Lanosoniveum, died during the larval or pupal stage, as shown by the EPF, B. bassiana. The first report on the entomopathogenicity of S. lanosoniveum and demonstrated its potential for use in insect biological control was recorded by Lim et al. (2014). The fungus S. lanosoniveum was able to cause mortality of Hysteroneura setariae ticks on Plum plants by 86.33% (Chen et al. 2017a, b). Chen et al. (2019) found 3 new species, namely Simplicillium cicadellidae, S. formicidae, and S. lepidopterorum. So far, there are limited reports of the fungus Simplicillium sp. being isolated from insects infected with the fungus.

The fungus L. lecanii effectively controlled brown plant hoppers with a density of 1010 conidia/ml, where the mortality value of (78.33%) and a time of death at 5.81 day after treatment occurred (Khoiroh et al. 2014). L. lecanii can cause more than 50% of brown planthopper mortality within 14 days after treatment (Atta et al. 2020), whereas according to Shaikh and Pandurang (2015), this fungus is less effective in controlling this pest. Sankar and Rani (2018) have found a new Lecanicillium isolate, namely L. saksenae, which can control stink bug (Leptocorisa acuta). This fungus can kill 100% of L. acuta nymphs and imago at 72 h after treatment at conidia densities 107 and 108.

Myrothecium verrucaria has a high activity against extracellular insect cuticles and produces chitinase, proteinase, and lipase (Vidhate et al. 2015).

Based on the literature search, the 3 fungi Simplicillium sp., L. saksenae, and Myrothecium sp. have never been reported to infect brown plant hopper. Data obtained from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/), also showed that these 3 fungi were not obtained from insect pests (Table 2). The results of this study revealed 3 types of new EPF that had the potential to be developed as control agents for brown plant hopper pests.

Conclusion

The results of molecular identification showed that the isolates J22, J34, and J 60 were fungi from L. saksenae, Myrothecium sp., and Simplicillium sp., respectively. The results of literature search showed that these 3 fungi had never been reported to infect brown plant hopper. So that the results of this study can be considered new finding of EPF as biological agents of the control brown plant hopper pests.

Availability of data and materials

All data are available in the article and the materials used in this work are of high quality and grade.

Abbreviations

BPH:

Brown plant hopper

BLAST:

Basic Local Alignment Search Tool

CTAB:

Cetyl trimethylammonium bromide

DNA:

Deoxyribonucleic acid

ITS:

Internal transcribed spacer

PCR:

Polymerase chain reaction

PDA:

Potato dextrose agar

PDB:

Potato dextrose broth

PEG:

Polyethilen Glycol

UV:

Ultraviolet

References

  1. Atta B, Rizwan M, Sabir AM, Gogi MD, Farooq MA, Batta YA (2020) Efficacy of entomopathogenic fungi against brown planthopper Nilaparvata lugens (Stål) (Homoptera: Delphacidae) under controlled conditions. Gesunde Pflanzen 72(2):101–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10343-019-00490-6

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Balachiranjeevi CH, Prahalada GD, Mahender A, Jamaloddin M, MAL S, Marfori-Nazarea CM, Vinarao R, Sushanto U, Baehaki SE, Li ZK, Ali J (2019) Identification of a novel locus, BPH38(t), conferring resistance to brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens Stal.) using early backcross population in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Euphytica 215(185):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-019-2506-2 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().,-volV)

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bich GA, Castrillo ML, Kramer FL, Villalba LL, Zapata PD (2021) Morphological and molecular identification of entomopathogenic fungi from agricultural and forestry crops. Floresta e Ambiente 28(2):e20180086. https://doi.org/10.1590/2179-8087-FLORAM-2018-0086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen K, Li B, Lu Y, Zhang S, Wang C (2017b) Divergent LysM effectors contribute to the virulence of Beauveria bassiana by evasion of insect immune defences. Plos Pathog 13(9):e1006604. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1006604

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen RS, Chi CH, Jia CL, Jwu GT (2017a) Evaluation of characteristics of Simplicillium lanosoniveum on pathogenicity to aphids and in vitro antifungal potency against plant pathogenic fungi. Int J Environ Agric Res (IJOEAR) 3(1):55–61. https://ijoear.com/Paper-January-2017/IJOEAR-JAN-2017-7.pdf.

  6. Chen WH, Chang L, Yan FH, Jian DL, Wei YT, Zong QL (2019) Three novel insect-associated species of Simplicillium (Cordycipitaceae, Hypocreales) from Southwest China. MycoKeys 58:83–102. https://doi.org/10.3897/mycokeys.58.37176

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen Y, Ran SF, Dai DQ, Wang Y, Hyde KD, Wu YM, Jiang YL (2016) Mycosphere essays 2. Myrothecium. Mycosphere 7(1):64–80. https://doi.org/10.5943/mycosphere/7/1/7

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chinniah C, Ravikumar A, Kalyanasundaram M, Parthiban P (2016) Field evaluation of Metarhizium anisopliae liquid formulation (BioMagic®) against brown plant hopper, Nilaparvata lugens Stal on rice. J Biopesticides 9(2):211–219 http://www.jbiopest.com/users/LW8/efiles/vol_9_2_211-219.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dong T, Zhang B, Jiang Y, Hu Q (2016) Isolation and classification of fungal whitefly entomopathogens from soils of Qinghai-Tibet Plateau and Gansu Corridorin China. Plos One 11(5):e 0156087. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156087

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Helina S, Sulandari S, Hartono S, Trisyono YA (2019) Detection and analysis of protein profile on rice infected by stunting virus with different severity on ciherang and situ bagendit varieties. J Perlindungan Tanaman Indones 23(1):116–124. https://doi.org/10.22146/jpti.36549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Henry T, Iwen PC, Hinrichs SH (2000) Identification of Aspergillus species using internal transcribed spacer regions 1 and 2. J Clin Microbiol. 38(4):1510–1515. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.38.4.1510-1515.2000

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Hiraishi A, Kamagata Y, Nakamura K (1995) Polymerase chain reaction amplification and restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of 16S rRNA genes from methanogens. J Ferment Bioeng. 79(6):523–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/0922-338x(95)94742-A

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hsia ICC, Islam MT, Ibrahim Y, How TY, Omar D (2014) Evaluation of conidial viability of entomopathogenic fungi as influenced by temperature and additive. Int J Agric Biol. 16(1):146–152 http://www.fspublishers.org

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Imoulan A, Hussain M, Kirk PM, El Meziane A, Yao YJ (2017) Entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria: host specificity, ecology and significance of morpho-molecular characterization in accurate taxonomic classification. J Asia-Pac Entomol 20(4(4):1204–1212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aspen.2017.08.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Khoiroh F, Isnawati, Ulfi F (2014) Patogenitas cendawan entomopatogen (Lecanicillium lecanii) sebagai bioinsektisida untuk pengendalian hama wereng batang coklat secara in vivo. Lentera Bio. 3(2):115–121 http://ejournal.unesa.ac.id/index.php/lenterabio

    Google Scholar 

  16. Klingen I, Westrum K, Meyling NV (2015) Effect of Norwegian entomopathogenic fungal isolates against Otiorhynchus sulcatus larvae at low temperatures and persistence in strawberry rhizospheres. Biol Control 81:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2014.10.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lim SY, Lee S, Kong HG, Lee J (2014) Entomopathogenicity of Simplicillium lanosoniveum Isolated in Korea. Mycobiology 42(4):317–321. https://doi.org/10.5941/MYCO.2014.42.4.317

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Litwin A, Nowak M, Rozalska S (2020) Entomopathogenic fungi: unconventional applications. Rev Environ Sci BioTechnol 19(1):23–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11157-020-09525-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Minarni EW, Soesanto L, Suyanto A, Rostaman (2020) Exploration and pathogenicity test of entomopathogenic fungus from brown planthopper (Nilaparvata lugens Stal) pest. Eco Env Cons. 26(1):24–33 http://www.envirobiotechjournals.com/EEC/26Issue12020/EEC26-4.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  20. Minarni EW, Suyanto A, Kartini K (2018) Potensi parasitoid telur dalam mengendalikan WBC (Nilaparvata lugens Stal.) pasca ledakan populasi di Kabupaten Banyumas. Jurnal Perlindungan Tanaman Indones 22(2):132–142. https://doi.org/10.22146/jpti.28886

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nguyen HC, Thi VAT, Quoc LN, Nhu NN, Minh KN, Ngoc TTN, Chia HS, Kuang HL (2017) Newly isolate Paecilomyces lilacinus and Paecilomyces javanicus as novel biocontrol agents for Plutella xylostella and Spodoptera litura. Not Bot Horti Agrobo 45(1):280–286. https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha45110726

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Nuraida A, Hasyim A (2009) Isolasi, identifikasi, dan karakterisasi jamur entomopatogen dari rizosfir pertanaman kubis. J Hort. 19(4):419–432 http://ejurnal.litbang.pertanian.go.id/index.php/jhort/article/view/868

    Google Scholar 

  23. Rosmini R, Lasmini SA (2010) Identifikasi cendawan entomopatogen lokal dan tingkat patogenitasnya terhadap hama wereng hijau (Nephotettix virescens distant.) vektor virus tungro pada tanaman padi sawah di Kabupaten Donggala. J Agroland 17(3):205–212. https://doi.org/10.22487/J.24077607.2010.v17.i3.304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sankar SSH, Rani OPR (2018) Pathogenicity and field efficacy of the entomopathogenic fungus, Lecanicillium saksenae Kushwaha, Kurihara and Sukarno in the management of rice bug, Leptocorisa acuta Thunberg. J Biol Control 32(4):230–238. https://doi.org/10.18311/jbc/2018/19808

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Shafighi Y, Ziaee M, Ghosta Y (2014) Diatomaceous earth used against insect pests, applied alone or in combination with Metarhizium anisopliae and Beauveria bassiana. J Plant Prot Res 54(1):62–66. https://doi.org/10.2478/jppr-2014-0009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Shaikh SH, Pandurang M (2015) Effect of entomopathogenic fungi against brown plant hopper, Nilaparvata lugens (Stal.) (Hemiptera: Delphacidae) infesting rice. Int J Sci Res (IJSR) 4(10):905–907 http://www.ijsr.net

    Google Scholar 

  27. Shenoy BD, Jeewon R, Hyde KD (2007) Impact of DNA sequence-data on the taxonomy of anamorphic fungi. Fungal Divers 26:1–54 https://www.fungaldiversity.org/fdp/sfdp/26-1.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  28. Shentu X, Xiao Y, Song Y, Chao Z, Fun J, Yu X (2020) Comparative analysis of the diversity of the microbial communities between non-fertilized and fertilized eggs of brown planthopper, Nilaparvata lugens. Insects 11(1):49; (1-13). https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11010049

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Sumikarsih E, Herlinda S, Pujiastuti Y (2019) Conidial density and viability of Beauveria bassiana isolates from Java and Sumatra and their virulence against Nilaparvata lugens at different temperatures. AGRIVITA. J Agric Sci 41(2):335–350. https://doi.org/10.17503/agrivita.v41i2.2105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Vidhate R, Jyoti S, Vandana G, Santosh BC, Amar P, Mukund VD (2015) Use of hydrolytic enzymes of Myrothecium verrucaria and Conidia of Metarhizium anisopliae, singly and sequentially to control pest and pathogens in grapes and their compatibility with pesticides used in the field. Biopestic Int. 11(1):48–60 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282292037

    Google Scholar 

  31. White TJ, Bruns TD, Lee SB, Taylor JW (1990) Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In: Innis MA, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ, White TJ (eds) PCR protocols. Academic, San Diego, pp 315–322

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Head of the Laboratory of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, Jenderal Soedirman Purwokerto University, The Biology Laboratory of Indonesian Academy of Sciences, and all those who have helped research and write this scientific article.

Funding

The author would like to thank the Directorate of Research and Community Service of the Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia for funding this research through the Doctoral Dissertation Research Grant in 2020.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

EWM performed the experiments on bioassay and analyzed the data. The manuscript was prepared by EWM, LS, AS, and R. All the authors read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Endang Warih Minarni.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Minarni, E.W., Soesanto, L., Suyanto, A. et al. Molecular identification of three entomopathogenic fungi infecting the brown plant hopper pest in Indonesia. Egypt J Biol Pest Control 31, 62 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41938-021-00412-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Entomopathogenic fungus
  • Lecanicillium saksenae
  • Molecular identification
  • Myrothecium sp.
  • Nilaparvata lugens
  • Simplicillium sp.
  • Brown plant hopper