Back to all available

Actinobacteria-derived secondary metabolites: a potential reservoir of antifungal agents

microbiology
mycology
infectious-diseases

Abstract

Fungi are recognized as one of the most perilous agents, possessing a detrimental capability due to their emerging pathogenesis, rapid disease progression, and increasing resistance to numerous medications. Although it accounts for a large number of severe effects, studies on fungus-related diseases in humans, plants, and animals are relatively less compared to bacterial infections. Fungi primarily induce diseases in hosts through two key mechanisms: direct invasion or damage to host tissues, manifesting as pathogenic symptoms, and the production of mycotoxins, which, when ingested or absorbed, lead to disease manifestation . Actinobacteria are renowned as a rich source of bioactive molecules, which possess a natural ability to counteract diverse fungal pathogens. These potential actinobacteria are extensively exploited to extract bioactive secondary metabolites, which are then used to formulate antifungal products. This review emphasizes the catastrophic impacts of fungal pathogens in plants, animals, and humans. It also highlights the antifungal metabolites produced by various actinobacteria inhabiting different environmental niches along with their target fungal pathogens, including the different antagonistic mechanisms involved.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].