Skip to main content
. 2022 Sep 29;8(10):1032. doi: 10.3390/jof8101032

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Comparison of fludioxonil resistance among the WT strain HN08, ΔCsPbs2, ΔCsAtf1, CsCyp51G1-OE, and ΔCsCyp51G1. (a) Mycelial growth of the tested strains cultured in CM containing different concentrations of fludioxonil for 5 d. (b) Growth inhibition rate of the tested strains under different concentrations of fludioxonil. The growth inhibition rate is relative to the growth rate of each untreated control [(diameter of untreated strain − diameter of treated strain)/(diameter of untreated strain × 100%)]. Three repeats were performed. The error bars show the SD value, and different letters indicate significant difference at p < 0.01 (One-way ANOVA and Duncan’s test).