Biological control is an effective and sustainable alternative or complement to conventional pesticides for fungal and bacterial plant disease management. Some of the most intensively studied biological control agents are bacteria that can use multiple mechanisms implicated in the limitation of plant disease development, and several bacterial-based products have been already registered and marketed as biopesticides. However, efforts are still required to increase the commercially available microbial biopesticides. The inconsistency in the performance of bacterial biocontrol agents in the biological control has limited their extensive use in commercial agriculture. Pathosystem factors and environmental conditions have been shown to be key factors involved in the final levels of disease control achieved by bacteria. Several biotic and abiotic factors can influence the performance of the biocontrol agents, affecting their mechanisms of action or the multitrophic interaction between the plant, the pathogen, and the bacteria. This review shows some relevant examples of known bacterial biocontrol agents, with especial emphasis on research carried out by Spanish groups. In addition, the importance of the screening process and of the key steps in the development of bacterial biocontrol agents is highlighted. Besides, some improvement approaches and future trends are considered.

Several diseases caused by viruses, bacteria and fungi affect plant crops, resulting in losses and decreasing the quality and safety of agricultural

Background: Pantoea agglomeransstrains are among the most promising biocontrol agents for a variety of bacterial and fungal plant diseases, particularly fire blight of apple and pear. However, commercial registration ofP. agglomeransbiocontrol products is hampered because this species is currently listed as a biosafety level 2 (BL2) organism due to clinical reports as an opportunistic human pathogen. This study compares plant-origin and clinical strains in a search for discriminating genotypic/phenotypic markers using multi-locus phylogenetic analysis and fluorescent amplified fragment length polymorphisms (fAFLP) fingerprinting.Results: Majority of the clinical isolates from culture collections were found to be improperly designated asP. agglomeransafter sequence analysis. The frequent taxonomic rearrangements underwent by theEnterobacter agglomerans/Erwinia herbicolacomplex may be a major problem in assessing clinical associations withinP. agglomerans. In theP. agglomerans sensu stricto(in the stricter sense) group, there was no discrete clustering of clinical/biocontrol strains and no marker was identified that was uniquely associated to clinical strains. A putative biocontrol-specific fAFLP marker was identified only in biocontrol strains. The partial ORF located in this band corresponded to an ABC transporter that was found in allP. agglomeransstrains.Conclusion: Taxonomic mischaracterization was identified as a major problem withP. agglomerans, and current techniques removed a majority of clinical strains from this species. Although clear discrimination betweenP. agglomeransplant and clinical strains was not obtained with phylogenetic analysis, a single marker characteristic of biocontrol strains was identified which may be of use in strain biosafety determinations. In addition, the lack of Koch's postulate fulfilment, rare retention of clinical strains for subsequent confirmation, and the polymicrobial nature ofP. agglomeransclinical reports should be considered in biosafety assessment of beneficial strains in this species.