RMF Logo

Article filters

Search Papers:

For searching before 2024 see Archive (2000-2023)
  • Vol. 2026, 44(3)
  • Phytopathological Note

Use of Purpureocillium lilacinum MTL01 and Bacillus velezensis 83 to reduce galling by Meloidogyne enterolobii and improve flowering in tomato

By Elena Lugo García, Alejandro Salinas Castro, Gandhi Landa Cadena, Claudia Martínez Anaya, Irán Tapia Vázquez*

*Corresponding Author.

Received: 07/May/2026 – Published: 25/August/2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.18781/R.MEX.FIT.2505-3

  • PDF
  • HTML
  • XML
    • Click on the cite to copy
    • Lugo-García E, Salinas-Castro A, Landa-Cadena G, Martínez-Anaya C, Tapia-Vázquez I. 2026. Use of Purpureocillium lilacinum MTL01 and Bacillus velezensis 83 to reduce galling by Meloidogyne enterolobii and improve flowering in tomato. Mexican Journal of Phytopathology 44(3):134. https://doi.org/10.18781/R.MEX.FIT.2505-3
    • Lugo-García, E, Salinas-Castro, A, Landa-Cadena, G, Martínez-Anaya, C y Tapia-Vázquez, I (2026). Use of Purpureocillium lilacinum MTL01 and Bacillus velezensis 83 to reduce galling by Meloidogyne enterolobii and improve flowering in tomato. Mexican Journal of Phytopathology 44(3):134. https://doi.org/10.18781/R.MEX.FIT.2505-3
    • Elena Lugo-García, Alejandro Salinas-Castro, Gandhi Landa-Cadena, Claudia Martínez-Anaya y Irán Tapia-Vázquez. 2026. Use of Purpureocillium lilacinum MTL01 and Bacillus velezensis 83 to reduce galling by Meloidogyne enterolobii and improve flowering in tomato. Mexican Journal of Phytopathology 44(3):134. https://doi.org/10.18781/R.MEX.FIT.2505-3
    • Export RIS | Export BibTeX

Abstract Background/Objective. The aim of this study was to determine the combined effect of an environmental strain of Purpureocillium lilacinum (MTL01) together with Bacillus velezensis 83, upon infection by the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne enterolobii.

Experimental development. Three greenhouse experiments were conducted at different times (July–October 2022, February–June 2023, and September 2024–January 2025). In each experiment, treatments included uninoculated controls, plants inoculated only with P. lilacinum MTL01, with B. velezensis 83 only, or with both microorganisms, with and without nematode infection. Certified tomato seeds were inoculated with MTL01 spores or solution as a control and transplanted after germination. B. velezensis 83 was inoculated one week later, followed by two additional applications. Nematodes were introduced three weeks after transplanting, and plants were subsequently maintained in a greenhouse for an additional eight weeks. At harvest, growth parameters and infection levels were quantified (biomass, length, number of flowers, root weight, number of galls, and galling index).

Results. Data of vegetative growth varied among experiments, with no clear evidence of effects associated with microbial inoculation. However, the combination of P. lilacinum MTL01 and B. velezensis 83 showed reproducible results, reducing gall formation caused by M. enterolobii by more than 60% and promoting a consistent tendency toward increased flowering relative to nematode-infested control plants. These results demonstrate the potential of using combined microorganisms to improve tomato performance under greenhouse conditions.

Conclusion. Our findings highlight the importance of mitigating M. enterolobii infection in tomato using a combination of microorganisms, not only to control nematode populations but also to increase flower yield by up to 4.3-fold (Experiment 3) in plants without nematodes, and 1.6-fold in the presence of M. enterolobii. This represents a promising strategy; however, further research is needed to confirm its safety and optimize its application under real agricultural conditions.

Keywords: Fungus, Bacterium, Nematode, Biocontrol, Phenology

Table 1. Phenological response variables in the presence and absence of <em>M. enterolobii</em> under different treatments, Experiment 1 (July to October 2022).
Table 1. Phenological response variables in the presence and absence of M. enterolobii under different treatments, Experiment 1 (July to October 2022).
Table 2. Phenological response variables in the presence and absence of <em>M. enterolobii</em> under different treatments, Experiment 2 (February to June 2023).
Table 2. Phenological response variables in the presence and absence of M. enterolobii under different treatments, Experiment 2 (February to June 2023).
Table 3. Phenological response variables in the presence and absence of <em>M. enterolobii</em> under different treatments, Experiment 3 (September 2024 – January 2025).
Table 3. Phenological response variables in the presence and absence of M. enterolobii under different treatments, Experiment 3 (September 2024 – January 2025).
Table 4. Number and percentage of gall reduction by treatment in three independent experiments.
Table 4. Number and percentage of gall reduction by treatment in three independent experiments.
Figure 1. Isolation and characterization of <em>P. lilacinum</em> MTL01. <strong>A</strong>) MTL01 mycelium growing on an egg mass of <em>M. paranaensis</em>. <strong>B</strong>) Reproductive structures of MTL01: conidiophores, phialides, and conidia. <strong>C</strong> and <strong>D</strong>). Appearance of MTL01 on PDA medium: upper and lower views. <strong>E</strong>) <em>M. enterolobii</em> eggs parasitized by MTL01 on PDA medium. <strong>F</strong>) Parasitized egg from roots in Experiment 1. <strong>G</strong> and <strong>H</strong>) Parasitized adult females from roots in Experiment 1. <strong>I</strong>) Phylogeny of MTL01 compared with other strains and related species.
Figure 1. Isolation and characterization of P. lilacinum MTL01. A) MTL01 mycelium growing on an egg mass of M. paranaensis. B) Reproductive structures of MTL01: conidiophores, phialides, and conidia. C and D). Appearance of MTL01 on PDA medium: upper and lower views. E) M. enterolobii eggs parasitized by MTL01 on PDA medium. F) Parasitized egg from roots in Experiment 1. G and H) Parasitized adult females from roots in Experiment 1. I) Phylogeny of MTL01 compared with other strains and related species.
Figure 2. Laboratory population of <em>M. enterolobii</em>.<strong> A</strong>) Galling roots after <em>M. enterolobii</em> propagation 90 days after J2 inoculation in a 4-month-old tomato plant. <strong>B</strong>) Gall with an exposed egg mass (white arrow) and eggs (yellow arrow). <strong>C</strong>) Pear-shaped female body (upper arrow) and egg mass (lower arrow). <strong>D</strong>) J2-stage nematodes hatched in water.
Figure 2. Laboratory population of M. enterolobii. A) Galling roots after M. enterolobii propagation 90 days after J2 inoculation in a 4-month-old tomato plant. B) Gall with an exposed egg mass (white arrow) and eggs (yellow arrow). C) Pear-shaped female body (upper arrow) and egg mass (lower arrow). D) J2-stage nematodes hatched in water.
Figure 3. The combination of <em>P. lilacinum</em> MTL01 and <em>B. velezensis</em> 83 promotes flowering and reduces galling in tomato plants infected with M. enterolobii. <strong>A</strong>), <strong>C</strong>), and <strong>E</strong>): Flower counts throughout the life cycle before the end of each experiment. <strong>B</strong>), <strong>D</strong>), and <strong>F</strong>): Root galling by experiment. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences (ANOVA, Tukey’s test; p < 0.05).
Figure 3. The combination of P. lilacinum MTL01 and B. velezensis 83 promotes flowering and reduces galling in tomato plants infected with M. enterolobii. A), C), and E): Flower counts throughout the life cycle before the end of each experiment. B), D), and F): Root galling by experiment. Different letters indicate statistically significant differences (ANOVA, Tukey’s test; p < 0.05).