Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Feb 13;18(2):e0281623. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281623

Isolation and characterization of halophilic and halotolerant fungi from man-made solar salterns in Pattani Province, Thailand

Lakkhana Kanhayuwa Wingfield 1,*, Ninadia Jitprasitporn 1, Nureeda Che-alee 1
Editor: William C Nierman2
PMCID: PMC9925087  PMID: 36780513

Abstract

The present study explored culturable halophilic and halotolerant fungi from man-made solar salterns in Pattani Province, Thailand. A total of 24 fungal isolates were discovered and characterized using morphological and molecular identification. Production of extracellular enzymes, secondary metabolites and mycoviruses was examined. Growth was observed in salinity and temperature ranges between 0%-20% and 28–40°C, respectively. Growth in different environmental conditions confirmed the halophilic or halotolerant nature of some strains. Fungal isolates were phylogenetically classified into seven different genera belonging to Aspergillus, Cladosporium, Curvularia, Diaporthe, Ectophoma, Fusarium and Penicillium. An enzymatic production test revealed that thirteen isolates could produce proteases and amylases at different levels. The presence of mycoviruses was detected in three isolates. Seventeen of the 24 isolates produced antimicrobial metabolites. The majority of these active isolates were identified as Aspergillus and Penicillium species. Crude extracts of the fungal mycelia and culture broths from these isolates had an inhibitory effect on both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria and human pathogenic fungi. Research into fungi from saline environments could reveal fungal strains of biotechnological and industrial interest.

Introduction

Fungi are eukaryotic organisms that can be either unicellular yeast or multicellular hypha. They are mainly found in soil but also in aquatic habitats. Fungi have been observed in extreme environments such as the polar regions, hot springs, deserts, saline water, ocean pits and very low pH environments [1]. They are also found in hypersaline environments, which usually contain salt concentrations higher than the 3.5% typical of seawater [2]. Examples of hypersaline environments are solar salterns and crystallization ponds. In these systems, the evaporation of water in this environment causes precipitation of minerals and sodium chloride (NaCl) at levels >300 practical salinity unit (psu), turning neutral pH soil slightly alkaline [3].

Organisms that require salt for their growth are known as halophiles. Halophiles can be categorized into five major groups: 1) non-halophiles, which grow in <0.2 M (c.a. 1%) NaCl; 2) mild halophiles, which require 0.2–0.5 M (c.a. 1–3%) NaCl; 3) moderate halophiles, which require 0.5–2.5 M (c.a. 3–15%) NaCl; 4) borderline extreme halophiles, which require 1.5–4.0 M (c.a. 9–23%) NaCl; and 5) extreme halophiles, which require 2.5–5.2 M (c.a. 15–32%) NaCl [4]. Fungi that inhabit extreme environments are mainly categorized as belonging to the imperfect stage of the Ascomycota [5]. Aspergillus and Penicillium are the predominant genera that have been reported to exist in hypersaline environments. Other genera include Acremonium, Alternaria, Chaetomium, Cladosporium, Fusarium and Wallemia [612]. New fungal species are frequently found in hypersaline environments, as described in several reports, which include three species of Wallemia [13], three species of Gymnoascus [14] and twelve species of Cladosporium [15].

Salinity can directly affect fungal growth and sporulation. For example, at salinities above 5%, increased sporulation and chlamydospore formation are observed while fewer hyphae are produced [6]. Generally, fungi in extreme environments produce extremolytes and extremozymes to cope with osmotic stress [16]. When environmental osmolarity is high, some fungi can neutralize water loss by accumulating K+ ions in their cells [17]. Other fungi accumulate osmolytes (polyols, sugars and amino acids) as compatible organic solutes [18]. The high salinity of hypersaline environments makes these habitats a potential source of halophilic fungi that can produce enzymes for industrial applications. Investigations of enzymes obtained from halophilic fungi have identified amylases, cellulases, lipases and proteases [19]. In addition, secondary metabolites produced by fungal halophiles have been reported to include antimicrobial agents, toxins and pigments [20]. Many fungal species can be infected with fungal viruses known as mycoviruses [21]. Mycovirus infections can exhibit a range of phenotypes on fungal hosts, both beneficial and harmful. It has been demonstrated that mycoviruses can confer both thermal tolerance and thermal stress on a fungus. For instance, infection by the double-stranded (ds)RNA mycovirus Curvularia thermal tolerance virus (CThTV) induces thermal tolerance in the endophytic fungus C. protuberata and its host plant Dichanthelium lanuginosum [22]. In addition, a mycovirus can induce the production of the metabolite tenuazonic acid in a rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae [23].

Studies of the physiology and genetics of halophilic fungi are significant to the understanding of the ecological roles and potential biotechnological applications of their enzymes and metabolites, and mycoviruses. Several halophilic fungi have been isolated from solar saltern ecosystems and described. However, their diversity, ecological role and potential to produce secondary metabolites are still poorly understood. In Thailand, saline soil areas are primarily found along the coastal areas and in a northeast inland region, that covers an area of 130 km2. Man-made solar salterns constructed for the extraction of NaCl are mainly located along the Central Region coastal belt in the provinces of Phetchaburi and Samut-sakorn. Some halophilic fungi from these habitats have been described [24], but there is no record of halophilic fungi from habitats in the coastal belt of the Southern Region of Thailand. In the present study, we report the first study to consider the diversity of fungal halophiles in solar salterns in Pattani Province, southern Thailand. We discovered fungal phylotypes that could produce extracellular enzymes and bioactive metabolites, and mycoviruses to be further used for biotechnological and industrial interests. The salt tolerance and temperature tolerance of the isolates were also evaluated.

Materials and methods

Sampling sites

Soil samples were collected at the end of dry season (May 2020) from solar salterns located in the province of Pattani in southern Thailand (6°88’21.5"N 101°28’04.5"E). Sampling was carried out at two sites, which are presented in Fig 1. The man-made salterns lie about 1 m above sea level, and the air temperature at the sampling site was recorded as 34.0°C. Soil samples were collected from the surface layer of the soil at depth of 1 to 5 cm and from the subsoil at a depth of 5 to 15 cm. The collected samples were placed in sterile collection bags and transported to the laboratory.

Fig 1. Sampling sites.

Fig 1

A) Geographic location of the sampling sites (USGS National Map Viewer (http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/)). B-D) Characteristics of the sampling sites and neighboring locations at Ban Bana district, Pattani Province, Thailand.

Physicochemical analysis of soil

Soil suspensions were prepared for physicochemical analysis by mixing 10 g of soil sample in 50 mL of distilled water. The salinity and pH of soil suspensions were determined using a salinity refractometer and pH meter, respectively. Moisture content was measured by calculating the weight difference between fresh and dried soil samples. Organic matter and total organic carbon (TC) were respectively determined by the Walkley-Black wet combustion method and a total organic carbon analyzer (Teckmar-Dohrmann Phoenix 8000) [25]. Total nitrogen (TN) was measured by the Kjeldahl digestion method using a Tecator DS-6 Digester [26].

Isolation and morphological identification of fungi

Fungal isolation was performed using a ten-fold serial dilution method on potato dextrose agar (PDA) supplemented with 10% NaCl and 100 μg/mL chloramphenicol. A mixture of 10 g of soil in 90 mL of sterile phosphate buffer was shaken at 200 rpm for 30 min and serially diluted at 10−1 to 10−3. One hundred μL from each dilution were spread plated, and the plates were incubated at 28°C for 7–21 days. Axenic fungal cultures were obtained by transferring isolated hyphal tips to fresh PDA plates containing the same salt concentrations, for incubation at 28°C for one to two weeks. Fungal isolates were identified as different genera and species by observing their macroscopic morphology (growth rate, colony color, pigmentation and colony surface) and microscopic morphology (sexual and asexual reproductive organs, hyphae and ultrastructure). The identification keys of Samson et al. [27], Dugan [28] and Ellis et al. [29] were used to identify isolates in different genera.

Molecular identification

Fungal DNA was extracted as previously described by Wingfield and Atcharawiriyakul [30]. Briefly, fungal mycelium frozen in liquid nitrogen was ground, and 0.1 g of the ground mycelium was subjected to an IRRI DNA extraction method. A volume of 1 mL of extraction buffer [50 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8), 25 mM EDTA, 300 mM NaCl, 1% SDS] was added, followed by the addition of 500 μL of chloroform/isoamyl alcohol (24:1). The mixture was then centrifuged at 13,000 rpm for 1 min. A 750 μl supernatant was transferred and subjected to ethanol precipitation. The resulting DNA pellet was washed with 70% ethanol and resuspended in 100 μl of TE buffer (10 mM Tris-HCl, 1 mM EDTA pH 8.0). DNA integrity was checked by electrophoresis in 1% agarose gels, followed by staining with ethidium bromide (10 mg/mL). The purity of DNA was assessed from the ratio of absorbance at 260 and 280 nm.

PCR amplification of internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions of fungal rDNA was performed using ITS primer sets (ITS1/ITS4N and ITS4N/ITS5) as described by Wingfield and Atcharawiriyakul [30]. In addition to the ITS regions, other DNA regions were amplified according to the fungal genera. β-tubulin was amplified for strains of Aspergillus and Penicillium using primers Bt2a/Bt2b [31], the 1α translation elongation factor gene (TEF-1α) was amplified for strains of Fusarium and Curvularia using primers EF1F/EF1R [32] and actin was amplified for strains of Cladosporium using primers ACT-512F/ACT-783R [33]. All the above PCR amplifications were done in a 50 μL reaction mixture containing 0.2 μL Taq DNA polymerase (5 U/ μL, Invitrogen, USA), 5.0 μL 10X PCR buffer, 1.0 μL dNTP mixture (10 mM), 1.5 μL MgCl2 (50 mM) and 2.5 μL primer mix (10 μM each). The PCR conditions were as follows: an initial denaturation at 94 ⁰C for 5 min, followed by 35 amplification cycles of denaturation at 94 ⁰C for 45 sec, annealing at 55 ⁰C for 30 sec and extension at 72 ⁰C for 90 sec, for completion with a final extension at 72 ⁰C for 10 min. All reactions were performed using a thermocycler (USA). Aliquots of 5 μL of the PCR products were resolved in 1% agarose gels in 1X tris acetate ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (TAE) buffer and visualized under UV light. The PCR products were purified using the MinElute® Gel Extraction Kit (QIAGEN) as described by the manufacturer. The purified amplicons were sent for sequencing at Macrogen Inc., South Korea, and the sequences obtained from each fungal isolate were further analyzed using the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) at the National Center of Biotechnology Information (NCBI) server.

Physiological and biochemical characterization

Physiological characterization was performed to determine the ability of the fungal isolates to grow in the presence of different NaCl concentrations ((w/v) 0%, 5%, 10% and 20%) and in different temperature ranges (25°C and 40°C). Growth was scored depending on the diameter of the colony after 7 days of incubation or after 15 days of incubation for slow-growing isolates.

The ability of the isolates to produce extracellular enzymes was examined. Amylase activity was tested on nutrient agar containing 2 g/L of soluble starch. Cultures were incubated for 2 to 5 days, depending on the growth rate of each isolate, and then flooded with an iodine solution. A clear zone around the colony indicated the presence of amylase [34]. Cellulase activity was tested on a solid medium containing 1% cellulose (7.0 g/L KH2PO4, 2.0 g/L K2HPO4, 0.1 g/L MgSO4.7H2O, 1.0 g/L (NH4)2SO4, 0.6 g/L yeast extract, 10 g/L microcrystalline cellulose and 15 g/L agar) [35]. After incubation, the cultures were further incubated at 50°C for 16 h to accelerate enzyme activity. The cultures were then flooded with 5 mL of 1% Congo red solution and rinsed with distilled water to detect a hydrolysis zone. Protease activity was tested on casein agar medium containing 30% skim milk and 2% agar. Degradation of casein was indicated by a clear zone around the colony [36]. Lipase activity was tested on a solid medium containing tween 80 (10 g/L peptone, 5 g/L NaCl, 0.1 g/L CaCl2.2H2O, 17 g/L agar and 10 mL/L Tween 80). Tween 80 was sterilized before addition to the sterile medium. Cultures were placed at 4°C for 12 h after incubation to observe opaque precipitation around the colony [34]. Each enzyme activity was evaluated by an enzymatic index (EI) where EI = R/r (R being the diameter of the clear zone and r the diameter of the colony) [32]. Mycovirus dsRNAs were extracted using LiCl fractionation as described by Hull and Covey [37]. dsRNA samples were purified by phenol-chloroform extraction. DNA and ssRNA contamination were removed by sequential DNase I and SI nuclease treatment. The viral genome was proved to be dsRNA by digestion with RNase III. The presence of the dsRNA was checked by electrophoresis in a 1% (w/v) agarose gel in 1X TAE buffer.

Antimicrobial assay

Fungal isolates were grown in a potato dextrose broth (PDB) for 21 days at 28°C under static conditions. Culture broths of 80 μL were used for primary screening of antimicrobial activity by agar well diffusion method [38] against pathogenic bacteria and fungi. Five Gram-positive bacteria, Enterococcus faecalis, Micrococcus. luteus (ATCC9341), Staphylococcus. aureus (ATCC25923), S. epidermidis, and methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA); three Gram-negative bacteria, Escherichia coli (ATCC25922), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ATCC27853), and Salmonella Typhi (ATCC19430); a pathogenic yeast, Candida albicans (ATCC90028); and two human pathogenic fungi, Aspergillus fumigatus AF293 and Microsporum canis, were tested. The culture broth of each fungal isolate was placed on a plate previously spread with a bacterial suspension (Mueller-Hinton Agar, MHA) or a yeast or fungal spore suspension (Sabouraud dextrose agar, SDA). A hyphal inhibition test [39] was also performed against the A. fumigatus AF293 and M. canis. The broad-spectrum antibiotic chloramphenicol (50 μg/mL) and the antifungal amphotericin B (50 μg/mL) were used as positive controls for bacteria and yeast, respectively. After incubation at 35 ⁰C for 18 h for bacteria, 28 ⁰C for 24–48 h for yeast and 28 ⁰C for 48 h for filamentous fungi, inhibition zones were measured as the mean diameter of the 8 mm wells plus the clearing zone in triplicates. The values obtained were presented as means ± standard deviation (n = 3).

Fungal isolates showing active antimicrobial activity were selected for secondary screening. Culture broths were filtered to separate filtrates and mycelia, which were both extracted three times with 95% ethyl alcohol. Various concentrations (1–100 mg/mL) of the ethanolic extracts of the filtrates and mycelia were tested for antimicrobial activity using the agar well diffusion method described above. Vancomycin and gentamicin were used as standard antibacterial agents and amphotericin B and miconazole were used as standard antifungal agents. The values obtained were presented as means ± standard deviation (n = 3).

Results

Physicochemical analysis of soil

The results of the physicochemical analyses of soil samples are presented in Table 1. Soil samples were mildly alkaline and had a moderate salinity rate, indicating the hypersaline condition of the sampling sites [40]. Clay material was dominant and the soil color ranged from green, and brown to dark gray. The solar saltern soils showed a deficiency in organic matter as total organic carbon, and organic matter levels were low. Nitrogen content was lower than reported in the literature [41].

Table 1. Physicochemical analyses of soil samples.

Parameter Test result
Site 1 Site 2
pH 7.62 7.55
Salinity (%w/w) 3.8 3.0
Salinity (g/kg) 37.53 30.42
Moisture content (%) 27.73 34.26
Total nitrogen content (%w/w) 0.10 0.15
Total organic carbon (%w/w) 1.06 1.54
Organic matter (%w/w) 1.82 2.01

Isolation and identification of the fungal isolates

A total of 24 fungal isolates were obtained on PDA supplemented with 10% NaCl (w/v). After plating, the growth of the isolates was monitored and recorded after incubation at 28°C for periods of between 7 and 21 days. Spore production was observed after 4–7 days for the spore-forming isolates. The isolates varied in macroscopic and microscopic characteristics in terms of colony color, pigmentation, surface and the hyphae were either pigmented or hyaline septate (Fig 2). Twenty-three isolates were identified to the genus level by macroscopic and microscopic observation, while one isolate could not be identified (sterile mycelia). All morphologically identified fungal isolates and the unidentified isolate were selected for molecular identification.

Fig 2. Morphological characteristics of the isolated fungi.

Fig 2

Morphological observation of the 24 fungal isolates based on macroscopic and microscopic morphology (magnification x40). Colony morphology (left panel), microscopic morphology (right panel). All isolates were grown on PDA plates for 7–14 days at 28°C.

Molecular identification and phylogenetic analysis

The fungal strains were identified using molecular analysis. BLAST analysis was performed to evaluate the phylogenetic relationships between an individual isolate and its nearest neighbors, and the results were presented as percentage similarity (Table 2). The sequences of most of the 24 assayed strains showed high similarity (>98%) with the sequences deposited in GenBank database.

Table 2. BLAST analysis results of the fungal isolates from solar salterns in Pattani Province and their close relatives.

Isolate code Locus Closest relative (BLAST) Accession number Identity (%)
NM-1 actin Cladosporium tenuissimum XCSY3 MT154174.1 99.49
NM-2 actin Cladosporium tenuissimum XCSY3 MT154174.1 96.91
NM-3 ITS Penicillium citrinum CF18 KM979730.1 99.07
NM-4 ITS Diaporthe miriciae BRIP 56918a KJ197284.1 99.08
NM-5 ITS Penicillium oxalicum MLG OL614490.1 99.65
NM-6 ITS Penicillium oxalicum RCEF4908 HM053477.1 99.82
NM-7 ITS Penicillium oxalicum RCEF4908 HM053477.1 99.62
NM-8 ITS Fusarium equiseti NRRL26419 NR_121457.1 99.62
NM-9 ITS Ectophoma pomi NTUCC17-034 isolate TR_13 MT112289.1 98.60
NM-10 ITS Ectophoma multirostrata CR32 MH790211.1 99.61
NM-11 ITS Fusarium solani ALAL-2 MW923791.1 96.26
NM-12 ITS Curvularia pseudobrachyspora CBS337.64 MN688815.1 99.64
NM-13 actin Cladosporium sp. A13 AJ300312.1 99.12
NM-14 ITS Aspergillus niger RMUAN75 MT550026.1 98.99
NM-15 ITS Aspergillus nomius USPMTOX119 MK033400.1 100.00
NM-16 β-tubulin Aspergillus subalbidus DTO:129-E3 KJ775068.1 99.61
NM-17 ITS Aspergillus sp. HF39 KR081422.1 96.15
NM-18 β-tubulin Aspergillus subalbidus DTO:129-E3 KJ775068.1 99.04
NM-19 β-tubulin Aspergillus subalbidus DTO:129-E3 KJ775068.1 98.91
NM-20 β-tubulin Aspergillus subalbidus DTO:129-E3 KJ775068.1 99.12
NM-21 ITS Aspergillus sp. SFB81 OL685266.1 96.83
NM-22 ITS Penicillium griseofulvum MSR1 KJ881374.1 98.37
NM-23 β-tubulin Aspergillus subalbidus CBS 567.65 MN969366.1 99.33
NM-24 β-tubulin Aspergillus subalbidus CBS 567.65 MN969366.1 98.88

Among the isolates, ten were affiliated to the genus Aspergillus with most of them exhibiting between 96 and 100% similarity. Aspergillus subalbidus was the most frequent halophilic fungal species found in the soil samples under study. Other genera were represented in small numbers and showed a close affiliation with known genera in the phylum Ascomycota. They included: Penicillium (5 isolates), Cladosporium (3 isolates), Fusarium (2 isolates), Ectophoma (2 isolates), Curvularia (1 isolate), and Diaporthe (1 isolate). Based on the bootstrap values of the ITS loci (Fig 3), Aspergillus and Penicillium are sister groups in the same clade and are closely related. The genera Curvularia, Diaporthe, Ectophoma and Fusarium fall in the same clade and therefore have a common evolutionary ancestor. Twenty-one strains were affiliated to 13 species belonging to seven genera and five orders. The other three strains were identified only at the genus level, belonging to the genera Aspergillus (NM-17, NM-21) and Cladosporium (NM-13), showing high similarity (96–99%) with sequences of more than one species. These strains could represent novel species; however, in-depth molecular and phylogenetic studies should be done to confirm their correct taxonomic position.

Fig 3. Phylogenetic analysis of the isolated fungi.

Fig 3

An unrooted phylogenetic tree was generated using the neighbor-joining method based on comparisons of the ITS ribosomal DNA sequences (blue clade), actin (red clade,) and the β-tubulin gene (green clade) of fungal isolates and their closest phylogenetic relatives. Percentages of bootstrap sampling derived from 1000 replications are indicated by the numbers on the tree.

Physiological characteristics

Halotolerance and temperature were studied to better understand the growth behavior, adaptation and survival of the fungal halophiles. The results are presented in Table 3 and S1 Fig. The halotolerance test revealed that all fungal strains showed growth on PDA plates supplemented with different NaCl concentrations (0%, 5%, 10% and 20% (w/v)). All isolates could grow on PDA medium without NaCl, indicating the non-obligatory halophilicity of all isolates. With the exceptions of NM-4, NM-6, NM-9, NM-10, NM-11 and NM-12, optimal growth was observed at NaCl concentrations of 5% and 10%. In a salt concentration of 10%, most of the isolates showed slow growth while isolates NM-3, NM-8, NM-16, NM-18, NM-19, NM-20, NM-22, NM-23 and NM-24 grew at the same rate as they did in 5% NaCl. However, isolates NM-3, NM-16, NM-18, NM-19, NM-20, NM-23 and NM-24 showed optimal growth at 10%.

Table 3. Growth characteristics of different halophilic fungal isolates under different physiological conditions (NaCl and temperature).

Strain identity Isolate code Salt tolerance Temperature tolerance
0% 5% 10% 20% Halophile 28°C 40°C
Cladosporium tenuissimum NM-1 ++ +++ ƚ ++ + Moderate ++ +
Cladosporium tenuissimum NM-2 ++ +++ ƚ ++ ++ Moderate ++ +
Penicillium citrinum NM-3 ++ ++ +++ ƚ + High¥ ++ ++
Diaporthe miriciae NM-4 +++* ƚ +++ + + Moderate +++* -
Penicillium oxalicum NM-5 ++ ++ ƚ ++ + Moderate ++ +
Penicillium oxalicum NM-6 +++ ƚ ++ ++ + Mild ++ +
Penicillium oxalicum NM-7 ++ ++ ƚ ++ + Moderate ++ +
Fusarium equiseti NM-8 +++* +++* ƚ +++* + High¥ +++* ++
Ectophoma pomi NM-9 +++ ƚ +++ ++ + Moderate ++ +
Ectophoma multirostrata NM-10 +++* ƚ +++ ++ + Moderate ++ +
Fusarium solani NM-11 +++* ƚ +++ ++ + Moderate +++* ++
Curvularia pseudobrachyspora NM-12 ++ ƚ ++ + + Mild +++ ++
Cladosporium sp. NM-13 ++ ++ ƚ ++ + Moderate +++ +
Aspergillus niger NM-14 ++ +++ *ƚ ++ + Moderate¥ +++ ++
Aspergillus nomius NM-15 +++ * +++ *ƚ ++ + Moderate +++ ++
Aspergillus subalbidus NM-16 + ++ ++ ƚ ++ High¥ ++ ++
Aspergillus sp. NM-17 ++ +++ ƚ ++ ++ Moderate¥ +++ ++
Aspergillus subalbidus NM-18 +++ +++ *ƚ +++* ƚ ++ High¥ +++ ++
Aspergillus subalbidus NM-19 +++ +++ *ƚ +++ * ƚ ++ High¥ +++ ++
Aspergillus subalbidus NM-20 +++ +++ *ƚ +++ *ƚ ++ High¥ +++ ++
Aspergillus sp. NM-21 +++ +++ ƚ ++ ++ Moderate +++ ++
Penicillium griseofulvum NM-22 ++ +++ ƚ +++ + High¥ +++ ++
Aspergillus subalbidus NM-23 +++ +++* +++*ƚ ++ High¥ +++* ++
Aspergillus subalbidus NM-24 ++ +++* +++*ƚ ++ High¥ +++* ++

Key:—(no growth), + (0–1.9 cm, slight growth), ++ (2.0–3.9 cm, moderate growth), +++ (>4.0 cm, abundant growth). Colony diameters were measured after 14 days of incubation. (*) indicates colony that shows growth of >4.0 cm after 7 days of incubation. (ƚ) indicates NaCl concentration that gives optimal growth. (¥) indicates halophilic behavior of the isolates.

The highest salt concentration tested was 20%, which slowed the growth of all tested fungal strains. Only nine isolates (NM-2, NM-16, NM-17, NM-18, NM-19, NM-20, NM-21, NM-23 and NM-24) showed moderate growth, while the rest showed slight growth in 20% NaCl (w/v) (Table 3). Notably, all fungal isolates obtained from the solar salterns could grow across all tested salt concentrations. Halophilic behavior was exhibited by the isolates Penicillium citrinum NM-3, Fusarium equiseti NM-8, Aspergillus niger NM-14, A. subalbidus NM-16, Aspergillus sp. NM-17, A. subalbidus NM-18, A. subalbidus NM-19, A. subalbidus NM-20, P. griseofulvum NM-22, Aspergillus sp. NM-23 and Aspergillus sp. NM-24 as they were found to grow well in 5 and 10% NaCl (w/v). The remaining isolates were halotolerant. In addition, the study demonstrated that the Aspergillus genus is highly tolerant of high salt concentrations. The temperature tolerance test demonstrated that the optimum growth temperature of most isolates was 28°C. When the temperature was raised to 40°C, slow growth was observed in all isolates except D. miriciae NM-4, which did not grow at all.

Screening for enzymatic activity

All the isolates were screened for their ability to produce extracellular proteases, cellulases, amylases and lipases by growing on a medium containing the respective substrates. Production of amylases, indicated by positive enzymatic activity on soluble starch, was observed in nine isolates (NM-2, NM-3, NM-5, NM-6, NM-7, NM-16, NM-17, NM-19 and NM-22) (Table 4). Positive protease activity, indicated by a clearance zone around the colony on casein agar, was observed in seven isolates (NM-1, NM-2, NM-3, NM-18, NM-20, NM-22 and NM-24). Eleven out of 24 isolates (46%) did not show any enzymatic activity on any of the substrates, while the production of cellulases and lipases was not detected in any of the isolates.

Table 4. Summary of enzymatic activity of some of the studied fungal isolates.

Only isolates positive for at least one substrate are shown.

Strain identity Isolate code Enzyme activity (EA)/Enzymatic index (EI)
Amylase Cellulase Lipase Protease
EA EI EA EI EA EI EA EI
Cladosporium tenuissimum NM-1 - - - - - - ++ 2.4
Cladosporium tenuissimum NM-2 ++ 2.0 - - - - + 1.6
Penicillium citrinum NM-3 ++ 2.2 - - - - + 1.5
Penicillium oxalicum NM-5 + 1.3 - - - - - -
Penicillium oxalicum NM-6 + 1.2 - - - - - -
Penicillium oxalicum NM-7 + 1.3 - - - - - -
Aspergillus subalbidus NM-16 ++ 4.0 - - - - - -
Aspergillus sp. NM-17 +++ 6.2 - - - - - -
Aspergillus subalbidus NM-18 - - - - - - + 1.3
Aspergillus subalbidus NM-19 + 1.4 - - - - - -
Aspergillus subalbidus NM-20 - - - - - - + 1.3
Penicillium griseofulvum NM-22 + 1.6 - - - - + 1.3
Aspergillus subalbidus NM-24 - - - - - - + 1.4

Key: Enzyme activity (EA);— = no activity, + = 0–3 mm, ++ = 3.1–6 mm, +++ = >6 mm.

It was observed that most fungi isolated in this study showed low enzymatic activity, as indicated by clear zone diameters around the colony (EA). Those with a clear zone measuring up to 3 mm were scored as (+). Moderate enzymatic activity for protease production was observed in the isolate NM-1; and for amylase production in isolates NM-2, NM-3 and NM-16, which had clear zones of 3.1–6.0 mm and were recorded as (++). High enzymatic activity for amylase production was shown by one isolate Aspergillus sp. NM-17, which showed a clear zone diameter above 6 mm and was scored as (+++). In addition, the EI was used to indicate the ability of each isolate to produce extracellular enzymes. Fungal isolates with an EI equal to or higher than 2 were classified as good candidates for enzyme production [34]. In terms of polyenzymatic activity, it was remarkable that some isolates could produce more than one enzyme (Cladosporium tenuissimum NM-2, Penicillium citrinum NM-3 and P. griseofulvum NM-22) (Table 4 and Fig 4).

Fig 4. Enzymatic activity test.

Fig 4

Four representative samples of the 13 fungal isolates which exhibited good extracellular enzymes activities.

Screening for dsRNA mycoviruses

All 24 fungal isolates were screened for the presence of dsRNA mycoviruses. The dsRNA segments of three isolates (12.5%) were detected as bright and distinct bands in gel electrophoresis,. Two different dsRNA patterns were detected, ranging from 0.75 to 3.5 kb in genomic size (Fig 5). One isolate (Fusarium equiseti NM-8) presented two dsRNA fragments between 2.7 and3.5 kb, and two isolates (Aspergillus subalbidus NM-18 and NM-19) presented three dsRNA fragments between 0.75 and 1.9 kb. Enzymatic digestion was performed to confirm their dsRNA identities. Primer sets were designed to yield PCR products from the coding regions of the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) and capsid protein (CP) of the partitivirus and chrysovirus previously described by Bhatti et al. [42]. However, no amplicon was generated.

Fig 5. Two putative dsRNA patterns of the 3 mycovirus infected strains.

Fig 5

A) Gel electrophoresis of isolated dsRNA patterns of fungal isolates. B) The dsRNA profiles displayed in lines.

Antimicrobial assay

In primary screening, 17 out of 24 isolates (71%) showed antimicrobial activity against at least one pathogen using the culture broth filtrate (Fig 6 and Table 5). The presence of inhibition zones qualitatively indicated positive antimicrobial activity. Eleven out of 24 isolates (46%) had positive antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Meanwhile, nine out of 24 isolates (38%; NM-3, NM-14, NM-15, NM-18, NM-19, NM-20, NM-22, NM-23 and NM-24) had positive antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria; and yeast. Six isolates showed positive antimicrobial activity against bacteria, yeast and filamentous fungi. P. citrinum NM-3 inhibited Micrococcus luteus, Staphylococcus aureus, S. epidermidis, MRSA, Salmonella Typhi, Candida albicans, Aspergillus fumigatus and Microsporum canis; and A. subalbidus NM-18, NM-19, NM-20 NM-23 and NM-24 inhibited E. faecalis, M. luteus, S. aureus, S. epidermidis, MRSA, E. coli, S. Typhi, C. albicans and A. fumigatus. It was remarkable that the A. subalbidus isolates showed the strongest antibacterial activity against E. faecalis and S. aureus and the strongest antifungal activity against C. albicans. Consideration of the antimicrobial activity of each fungal isolate against individual test organisms revealed that A. subalbidus NM-18, NM-19, NM-20 showed the most potent activity against E. faecalis and S. aureus while Fusarium equiseti NM-8 showed the most potent activity against M. luteus and MRSA. A. subalbidus NM-18, NM-19, NM-20, NM-23, NM-24 showed the strongest activity against E. coli, S. Typhi and C. albicans and F. solani NM-11 and P. griseofulvum NM-22 also showed strong activity against C. albicans. A. subalbidus NM-23 and NM-24 showed strongest activity against A. fumigatus. Results from this study indicated that fungi from solar salterns could be a good source of natural antimicrobial products.

Fig 6. Antimicrobial activity test.

Fig 6

Antimicrobial activity of active fungal isolates was determined by the agar well diffusion method. Culture broth filtrates of 80 μl were tested against pathogenic bacteria and fungi. Fungal filtrates exhibited large zones of inhibition for both Gram-positive (E. faecalis, M. luteus (ATCC9341), S. aureus (ATCC25923), S. epidermidis, methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA)) and Gram-negative (E. coli (ATCC25922) and S. Typhi (ATCC19430)) bacteria, including pathogenic yeast (C. albicans (ATCC90028),) and fungi (A. fumigatus AF293).

Table 5. Preliminary screening of antimicrobial activity of fungi isolated from salterns in Pattani Province, Thailand, was conducted using the agar well diffusion method.

Isolates Zone of inhibition (mm)
Pathogenic bacteria Pathogenic fungi Total no.
Gram-positive Gram-negative Yeast Mold
EF* ML SA SE MRSA EC PA ST CA AF MC
Cladosporium tenuissimum NM-1 - - 12.5±0.4 b - - 11.6±0.5 a - - - - - 2
Penicillium citrinum NM-3** - 10.9±0.5 a 15.2±0.8 c 14.4±0.6 c 14.8±1.3 a - - 11.6±0.1 a 25.7±0.7 c 10.1+0.4 a 9.3+0.6 a 6
Penicillium oxalicum NM-5 - 9.6±0.0 a - 9.9±0.0 a - - - - - - - 2
Penicillium oxalicum NM-6 - 9.2±0.0 a - 8.5±0.0 a - - - - - - - 2
Penicillium oxalicum NM-7 - 10.0±0.2 a - 9.9±0.2 a - - - - - - - 2
Fusarium equiseti NM-8** 23.3±0.3a 29.7±0.6 g 26.9±1.0 f 28.9±1.8 e 26.1±0.9 c - - - 25.0±2.1 c 15.8+1.5 c 10.0+0.5 a 6
Fusarium solani NM-11 - - 17.6±0.7 d 16.7±0.5 d - - - - 32.1±1.0 d - - 3
Aspergillus niger NM-14** - 11.4±0.5 b 13.2±0.2 b 9.4±0.0 a - - 8.5±0.5 a - 19.6±0.9 b - - 5
Aspergillus nomius NM-15** - - 10.6±0.0 a - - - 10.0±0.0 a 10.6±0.0 a 17.1±0.8 a - - 4
Aspergillus subalbidus NM-16** - 12.0±0.4 b 13.5±1.0 b 11.5±0.5 b - - - - 16.1±0.5 a - - 4
Aspergillus subalbidus NM-18** 24.7±0.7 a 19.7±0.3 d 35.7±1.5 h 15.2±0.4 c 14.5±0.6 a 27.8±1.7 b - 24.5±0.4 b 33.3±1.0 d 11.9+0.9 b - 8
Aspergillus subalbidus NM-19** 24.8±0.9 a 17.5±0.5 c 35.1±0.4 h 14.6±0.0 c 15.9±1.1 a 26.9±0.8 b - 23.7±0.6 b 35.8±1.9 e 12.3+1.1 b - 8
Aspergillus subalbidus NM-20** 24.2±0.3 a 20.4±0.4 e 33.9±0.4 g 28.0±0.5 e 17.5±1.1 b 28.5±1.5 b - 24.0±0.9 b 33.4±0.5 d 11.9+0.9 b - 8
Aspergillus sp. NM-21 - - - - - - 11.0±0.0 a - - - - 1
Penicillium griseofulvum NM-22** - 15.7±09 c 19.7±0.0 e 17.5±0.6 d 18.3±0.4 b - - 10.6±0.5 a 32.7±2.1 d - - 6
Aspergillus subalbidus NM-23** 21.1±0.0 b 25.3±0.5 f 33.6±0.5 g 17.0±0.0 d 18.0±0.0 b 28.9±0.5 b - 25.1±0.2 b 32.6±0.6 f 19.9+0.8 c - 8
Aspergillus subalbidus NM-24** 21.5±1.1 b 25.5±0.2 f 33.3±0.4 g 15.5±0.2 c 17.8±0.5 b 27.5±0.2 b - 25.5±1.5 b 36.9±1.2 g 21.6+0.1 d - 8
Total no. 6 13 13 14 8 6 3 8 12 3 3
Positive control EF * ML SA SE MRSA EC PA ST CA AF MC
Chloramphenicol (50 μg/mL) 55.1±1.2 59.1±1.5 17.0±0.5 20.0±0.7 15.1±0.2 17.1±0.3 39.0±0.5 55.1±2.0
Amphotericin B (50 μg/mL) 22.0±1.5 20.0±0.7 24.0±0.2
Vancomycin (20 μg/mL) 13.7±1.9 18.5±0.1 14.7±0.5 13.1±0.6 12.9±0.3
Gentamicin (20 μg/mL) 19.7±1.7 14.2±0.5 20.7±1.2
Amphotericin B (20 μg/mL) 19.3±0.6
Miconazole (20 μg/mL) 13.9±1.9 12.6±0.3

*EF: E. faecalis; ML: M. luteus (ATCC9341); SA: S. aureus (ATCC25923); SE: S. epidermidis; MRSA: methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA), EC: E. coli (ATCC25922), PA: P. aeruginosa (ATCC27853); ST: S. Typhi (ATCC19430); CA: C. albicans (ATCC90028), AF: A. fumigatus (AF293); and MC: M. canis. The same superscript letter(a-h) indicates no significant difference (p>0.05) between zone of inhibition values from different endophytic fungi against each test organism (same column).

**Number of most active fungal isolates that inhibit more than 4 test microorganisms with inhibition zones of ≥ 10 mm. -: no activity.

Eight active fungal isolates (NM-3, NM-8, NM-15, NM-18, NM-19, NM-20, NM-23 and NM-24) were tested for antimicrobial activity at various concentrations (1–100 mg/mL) of ethanolic extracts of their culture broths and mycelia. The results demonstrated that ethanolic extracts of the culture broths showed better inhibition against several test pathogens than the mycelia extracts (S1 Table). In addition, the culture broth extracts produced larger inhibition zones than the mycelial extracts. Most of the extracts did not inhibit test organisms at 1 mg/mL. Exceptionally, 1 mg/mL ethanolic extracts of the culture broths from P. citrinum NM-3 and F. equiseti NM-8showed strong inhibitory activity against pathogenic bacteria that was comparable to the inhibitory activity of the positive controls. Overall, the culture broth and mycelial extracts exhibited strong antimicrobial activity against most test organisms at 10 and 100 mg/mL, respectively.

Discussion

Characterization of fungi isolated from man-made solar salterns in Pattani Province discovered extracellular enzymes, secondary metabolites and mycoviruses that may have potential for biotechnological applications. In addition, the diversity of halophilic and halotolerant fungi inhabiting this environment was revealed.

Morphological and molecular identification demonstrated seven different genera belonging to the phylum Ascomycota. These findings were consistent with the reports from Ndwigah et al. [5] and Salano et al. [43], who indicated the phylum Ascomycota as the dominant fungal group in salterns and saline environments. Fungal isolates were classified as Aspergillus, Cladosporium, Curvularia, Diaporthe, Ectophoma, Fusarium and Penicillium. Similar studies have reported the presence at diverse levels of the genera Acremonium, Alternaria, Aspergillus, Cladosporium, Emericella, Eurotium, Fusarium, Penicillium and Wallemia in hypersaline environments [2, 612, 44]. Our findings revealed that A. subalbidus, which is morphologically almost identical to A. candidus, was the most dominant species found in the soil of solar salterns, followed by Penicillium sp. Nayak et al. [2] and Gunde-Cimerman and Zalar [8] reported that A. candidus was abundant in hypersaline environments and distributed more locally. F. equiseti, previously found in hypersaline soils [45], was also isolated in our study. We also isolated the genera Diaporthe and Ectophoma. These are genera generally recognized as endophytic fungi, but their presence in terrestrial saline soils has not previously been reported. The presence of dominant strains from different fungal genera suggests an ability to develop strategies to adapt to the extreme hypersaline conditions of the solar salterns. These strategies include the production of extremolytes and extremozymes [16] or cellular accumulations of K+ ions and osmolytes [17, 18]. Other strategies are, for instance, changes in ion transport or plasma membrane fluidity which play a crucial role in adaptation to high salt concentrations [8]. Further studies of the biotechnological applications of these fungi would be of interest owing to their ability to adapt to saline environments.

The biotechnological interest of the fungal isolates was investigated by testing their ability to grow at different NaCl concentrations and to produce extracellular enzymes and secondary metabolites. All the studies fungal isolates could grow across all tested salt concentrations (0–20% NaCl). The halotolerance test revealed that the majority of the isolates are halotolerant. Halophilic behavior (optimum growth at 10% NaCl) was observed from fungi belonging to the genera Aspergillus, Fusarium and Penicillium, while the other genera were halotolerant. In this study, Cladosporium and A. subalbidus were the most halotolerant fungi because they withstood the highest NaCl concentration (20% NaCl). It emerged that most of the halotolerant isolates were melanized fungi. These included Cladosporium, Curvularia and Ectophoma. The dark-pigmented character of these fungi was reported to be an essential factor for stress tolerance [17, 46, 47]. The optimal temperature required for all fungal growth was 28°C but some isolates also showed growth at 40°C. It has been shown that most halophilic microorganisms grow optimally at temperatures between 25 and 45°C [48].

The enzymatic activity of fungal isolates revealed their ability to produce extracellular enzymes. Thirteen out of 24 isolates showed the ability to produce proteases and amylases, meanwhile the production of cellulases and lipases was not detected. Certain isolates could be of interest for industrial applications. C. tenuissimum NM-1 could be used for protease production. P. citrinum NM-3, A. subalbidus NM-16 and Aspergillus sp. NM-17 could perhaps be applied in amylase production because they exhibited an EI higher than 2 [34]. The strain that presented the highest EI (6.2) was Aspergillus sp. NM-17. Our results supported the findings of Dendouga and Belhamra [12] and Chamekh et al. [45], who reported high production of protease from Cladosporium and high production of amylase from Aspergillus and Penicillium. In addition, their ability to tolerate salt stress is a characteristic that makes them good candidates for halophilic enzyme production.

Three dsRNA mycoviruses were detected among the isolates: F. equiseti NM-8 and A. subalbidus NM-18 and NM-19. They contained 2–3 genomic segments ranging in size from 0.75 to3.5 kb, comparable in size to multipartite dsRNA fragments from Aspergillus mycoviruses of the Partitiviridae and Chrysoviridae families [49, 50]. PCR amplification was performed to determine whether the mycoviruses observed in this study were partitiviruses or chrysoviruses, but no PCR product was generated. Although the dsRNA molecules obtained were comparable in size and genomic segmentation to the partitivirus and chrysovirus in the study of Bhatti et al. [42], they were not the same This also indicated that detected dsRNA mycoviruses could represent members of yet uncharacterized Partitiviridea and Chrysoviridae or belong to another virus family. Notably, the fungi harboring dsRNA mycoviruses in this study were halophilic and were positive for enzyme and antimicrobial activities. These properties could contribute to the presence of mycoviruses in the fungal hosts. Several studies have reported the advantages mycoviruses confer on fungi, for example, increased thermal tolerance in the endophytic fungus C. protuberata [22], and induced metabolite production in M. oryzae [23]. In addition, mycoviruses could theoretically be used as biological control agents against phytopathogenic fungi [51]. To identify potential biotechnological applications of mycoviruses of halophilic fungi, dsRNA molecules of the mycoviruses must be further sequenced and characterized.

Fungi from saline environments possess the potential to produce several secondary metabolites, including antimicrobial agents. In this study, 71% of the isolates showed antimicrobial activity against at least one pathogen. Antimicrobial production was noted for six isolates, which showed positive antimicrobial activity against bacteria, yeast and filamentous fungi. The isolates P. citrinum NM-3 and A. subalbidus NM-18, NM-19, NM-20, NM-23 and NM-24) proved to be active against the Gram-positive bacteria E. faecalis, M. luteus, S. aureus, S. epidermidis and MRSA, the Gram-negative bacteria E. coli and S. Typhi, the yeast C. albicans and also the human pathogenic fungus A. fumigatus. It is known that various polyketides, including antibiotics (penicillins), extrolites and penicillic acids, are produced by halophilic strains of Penicillium [52] and that, antimicrobial compounds such as β-lactam antibiotics from P. chrysogenum and other Penicillium species inhibit most Gram-positive bacteria [53]. In the light of this existing knowledge, the further characterization and purification of the active metabolites produced by the above six strains of P. citrinum and A. subalbidus are being investigated. The expectation is that the discovery of fungi in saline environments could further the exploration of new fungal strains and lead to innovative biotechnological and industrial applications involving their enzymes, metabolites and mycoviruses.

Conclusion

Our studies presented culturable halophilic and halotolerant fungi isolated from man-made solar salterns in Pattani Province, Thailand. A total of 24 fungal isolates were discovered and phylogenetically classified into seven genera belonging to Aspergillus, Cladosporium, Curvularia, Diaporthe, Ectophoma, Fusarium and Penicillium. Growth under varying salt concentrations confirmed the halophilic and halotolerant nature of some isolates. This study demonstrated the ability of some halophilic fungi to produce proteases and amylases. In addition, some fungal isolates were shown to harbor mycoviruses. Most of the isolates produced antimicrobial metabolites which displayed inhibitory effects on Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, including human pathogenic fungi. The ability of halophilic fungi to produce extracellular enzymes and antimicrobial agents, including properties of their mycoviruses should be a subject of further investigation. Notably, the exploration of fungal strains inhabiting saline environments could open up new biotechnological and industrial applications.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Halotolerance test of the isolated fungi.

Results were evaluated based on colony diameter after 14 days of growth at 28°C under various NaCl concentrations (0–20%(w/v)).

(TIF)

S1 Table. Antimicrobial activity of fungi isolated from saltern farms in Pattani Province.

Antimicrobial activity of ethanolic extracts of the culture broths and mycelia of eight active isolates using the agar well diffusion method.

(PDF)

S1 Raw image

(PDF)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was financially supported by Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation (Grant No. RGNS 63-239); and the National Science, Research and Innovation Fund (NSRF) and Prince of Songkla University (Grant No. MED6505096g). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Hassan N, Rafiq M, Hayat M, Shah AA, Hasan F. Psychrophilic and psychrotrophic fungi: a comprehensive review. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol. 2016; 15: 147–172. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Nayak S, Gonsalves V, Nazareth S. Isolation and salt tolerance of halophilic fungi from mangroves and solar salterns in Goa—India. Indian J Mar Sci. 2012; 41: 164–172. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Gostinčar C, Grube M, De Hoog S, Zalar P, Gunde-Cimerman N. Extremotolerance in fungi: evolution on the edge FEMS (Fed. Eur. Microbiol. Soc.). Microbiol Ecol. 2009; 71 (1): 2–11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kushner DJ. Growth and nutrition of halophilic bacteria. In: Vreeland RH, Hochstein LI, editors. The biology of halophilic bacteria. CRC Press, Boca Raton; 1993. pp 87–89. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ndwigah FI, Boga IH, Wanyoike W, Kachiuri R. An Aspergilllus isolate and its secondary metabolites from lake Elmentaita in Kenya. J Agric Sci. 2016; 17(1): 28–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Mandeel QA. Biodiversity of the genus Fusarium in saline soil habitats. J Basic Microbiol. 2006; 46(6): 480–494. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Grum-Grzhimaylo AA, Georgieva ML, Debets AJM, Bilanenko EN. Are alkalitolerant fungi of the Emericellopsis lineage (Bionectriaceae) of marine origin? IMA Fungus. 2013; 4(2): 213–228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Gunde-Cimerman N, Zalar P. Extremely halotolerant and halophilic fungi inhabit brine in solar salterns around the globe. Food Technol Biotechnol. 2014; 4: 170–179. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Moubasher AH, Abdel-Sater MA, Soliman Z. Diversity of yeasts and filamentous fungi in mud from hypersaline and freshwater bodies in Egypt. Czech Mycol. 2018; 70: 1–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Fotedar R, Kolecka A, Boekhout T, Fell JW, Al-Malki A, Zeyara A, et al. Fungal diversity of the hypersaline Inland Sea in Qatar. Botanica Marina. 2018; 61(6): 595–609. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chung D, Kim H, Choi HS. Fungi in salterns. J Microbiol. 2019; 57(9): 717–724. doi: 10.1007/s12275-019-9195-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Dendouga W, Belhamra M. Screening of halotolerant microfungi isolated from hypersaline soils of Algerian Sahara for production of hydrolytic enzymes. J Biol Res. 2022; 95:10167. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zalar P, de Hoog GS, Schroers HJ, Frank JM, Gunde-Cimerman N. Taxonomy and phylogeny of the xerophilic genus Wallemia (Wallemiomycetes and Wallemiales, cl. et ord. nov.). Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek. 2005; 87: 311–328. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zhou N, Zhang Y, Liu F, Cai L. Halophilic and thermotolerant Gymnoascus species from several special environments, China. Mycologia. 2016; 108: 179–191. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Schubert K, Groenewald JZ, Braun U, Dijksterhuis J, Starink M, Hill CF, et al. Biodiversity in the Cladosporium herbarum complex (Davidiellaceae, Capnodiales), with standardization of methods for Cladosporium taxonomy and diagnostics. Stud Mycol. 2007; 58: 105–156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Raddadi N, Cherif A, Daffonchio D, Neifar M, Fava F. Biotechnological applications of extremophiles, extremozymes and extremolytes. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2015; 99(19); 7907–7913. doi: 10.1007/s00253-015-6874-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Plemenitaš A, Lenassi M, Konte T, Kejžar A, Zajc J, Gostinčar C, et al. Adaptation to high salt concentrations in halotolerant/halophilic fungi: a molecular perspective. Front Microbiol. 2014; 5: 1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Roberts MF. Organic compatible solutes of halotolerant and halophilic microorganisms. Saline Syst. 2005; 1(1): 5. doi: 10.1186/1746-1448-1-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Oren A. Industrial and environmental applications of halophilic microorganisms. Environ Technol. 2010; 31: 825–834. doi: 10.1080/09593330903370026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Brakhage AA, Schroeckh V. Fungal secondary metabolites-strategies to activate silent gene clusters. Fungal Genet. Biol. 2011; 48(1): 15–22. doi: 10.1016/j.fgb.2010.04.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kanhayuwa L, Kotta-Loizou I, Özkan S, Gunning AP, Coutts, RHA. A novel mycovirus from Aspergillus fumigatus contains four unique dsRNAs as its genome and is infectious as dsRNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2015; 112: 9100–9105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Márquez LM, Redman RS, Rodriguez RJ, Roossinck MJ. A virus in a fungus in a plant: three-way symbiosis required for thermal tolerance. Science. 2007; 315: 513–515. doi: 10.1126/science.1136237 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ninomiya A, Urayama S, Suo R, Itoi S, Fuji S, Moriyama H, et al. Mycovirus-induced tenuazonic acid production in a rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae. Front. Microbiol. 2020. 11:1641. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01641 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Ali I, Kanhayuwa L, Rachdawong S, Rakshit SK. Identification, phylogenetic analysis and characterization of obligate halophilic fungi isolated from a man-made solar saltern in Phetchaburi province. Thailand. Ann Microbiol. 2013; 63: 887–895. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.De Vos B, Vandecasteele B, Deckers J, Muys B. Capability of loss on‐ignition as a predictor of total organic carbon in non‐calcareous forest soils. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 2005; 36: 19–20, 2899–2921, doi: 10.1080/00103620500306080 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Tan KH. Soil sampling preparation and analysis, New York: Marcel Dekker; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Samson RA, Hoekstra ES, Frisvad JC. Introduction to food and airborne fungi. 6th Ed. Utrecht: CentraalbureauvoorSchimmelcultures; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Dugan FM. The Identification of fungi—An illustrated introduction with keys, Glossary, and guide to literature, The American Phytopathological Society Press, St. Paul, USA; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ellis D, Davis S, Alexiou H, Handke R, Bartley R. Description of Medical Fungi, 3rd ed, South Australia Nexus Print Solutions; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wingfield LK, Atcharawiriyakul J. Evaluation of simple and rapid DNA extraction methods for molecular identification of fungi using the ITS regions. Asia-Pac J Sci Technol. 2021; 26(2): 7-Jan. doi: 10.14456/apst.2021.11 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Glass NL, Donaldson GC. 1995. Development of primer sets designed for use with the PCR to amplify conserved genes from filamentous ascomycetes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995; 61: 1323–1330. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Brygoo Y, Gautier A. Molecular polymorphism of Fusarium strains isolated from wheat and corn ears in France Collects 2003 and 2004. Paper presented at the conference sur les progres et perspectives de la recherche sur les mycotoxines de Fusarium dans les cereales. Arcachon, France, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Carbone I, Kohn LM. A method for designing primer sets for speciation studies in filamentous ascomycetes. Mycologia. 1999; 91: 553–556. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Hankin L, Anagnostakis SL. The use of solid media for detection of enzyme production by fungi. Mycologia. 1975; 67: 597–607. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Abe CA, Faria CB, de Castro FF, de Souza SR, dos Santos FC, da Silva CN, et al. Fungi isolated from maize (Zea mays L.) grains and production of associated enzyme activities. Int J Mol Sci. 2015; 16: 15328–15346. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Sarath G, de La Motte RS, Wagner FW. Protease assay methods. In: Beynon RJ, Bonde JS, editors. Proteolytics enzymes: a practical approach. Oxford, UK: University Press; 1989. pp. 25–54. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Hull R, Covey S. Characterization of cauliflower mosaic virus DNA forms isolated from infected turnip leaves. Nucleic Acids Res. 1993; 11: 1881–1895. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lorian V. Antibiotics in Laboratory Medicine, 3rd edition. Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Huang X, Xie W, Gong Z. Characteristics and antifungal activity of chitin binding protein from Ginkgo biloba. FEBS Lett. 2000; 478: 123–126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Gunde-Cimerman N, Zalar P, de Hoog S, Plemenitaš A. Hypersaline waters in salterns—natural ecological niches for halophilic black yeasts. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2000; 32(3): 235–240. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2000.tb00716.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hazelton PA, Murphy BW. Interpreting soil test results what do all the numbers mean CSIRO Publishing, Australia; 2007. pp. 1–152. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Bhatti MF, Jamal A, Petrou MA, Cairns TC, Bignell EM, Coutts RHA. The effects of dsRNA mycoviruses on growth and murine virulence of Aspergillus fumigatus. Fungal Genet Biol. 2011; 48: 1071–1075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Salano OA, Makonde HM, Kasili RW, Nyawira L, Nawiri MP, Boga HI. Diversity and distribution of fungal communities within the hot springs of soda lakes in the Kenyan rift valley. 2017; 11(19): 764–775. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Gunde-Cimerman N, Frisvad JC, Zalar P, Plemenitas A. Halotolerant and halophilic fungi. In: Deshmukh S.K., Rai M.K. (Eds.), Biodiversity of Fungi: Their Role in Human Life. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Chamekh R, Deniel F, Donot C, Jany JL, Nodet P, Belabid L. Isolation, identification and enzymatic activity of halotolerant and halophilic fungi from the Great Sebkha of Oran in northwestern of Algeria. Mycobiology. 2019; 47(2): 230–241. doi: 10.1080/12298093.2019.1623979 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Nazareth SW. The world of halophilic fungi. Kavaka. 2014; 42: 131–144. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Liu X, Meng H, Wang Y, Katayama Y, Gu JD. Water is a critical factor in evaluating and assessing microbial colonization and destruction of Angkor sandstone monuments. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2018; 133: 9–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Oren A. Life in high-salinity environments. In Manual of Environmental Microbiology, 4th edition. American Society of Microbiology; 2016. pp. 3–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Hammond TM, Andrewski MD, Roossinck MJ, Keller NP. Aspergillus mycoviruses are targets and suppressors of RNA silencing. Eukaryot Cell. 2008; 7: 350–357. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Liu W, Duns G, Chen J. Genomic characterization of a novel partitivirus infecting Aspergillus ochraceus. Virus Genes. 2008; 37: 322–327. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ghabrial SA, Suzuki N. Viruses of plant pathogenic fungi. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2009; 47: 353–384. doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-080508-081932 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Frisvad JC. Halotolerant and halophilic fungi and their extrolite production. Adaptation to Life at High Salt Concentrations in Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukarya. Springer; 2005. pp. 425–439. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Orfali R, Perveen S, AlAjmI MF, Ghaffar S, Rehman MT, AlanzI AR, et al. Antimicrobial activity of dihydroisocoumarin isolated from Wadi Lajab sediment-derived fungus Penicillium chrysogenum: In vitro and In silico study. Molecules. 2022; 27: 3630. 10.3390/molecules27113630 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

William C Nierman

17 Jun 2022

PONE-D-22-14572Isolation and characterization of halophilic and halotolerant fungi from man-made solar salterns in Pattani province, ThailandPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wingfield,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: 

  • The concerns addressed by the reviewers were more related the English language presentation and the figure legend details and images in some cases and the selected references to cite rather than scientific issues so please focus on responding to these concerns in the revised manuscript. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 01 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

William C. Nierman, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels. 

  

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an ""Other"" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript covers the novel aspects in the niche of extremophilic fungi, which is appreciated and is recommended for publication after following few points are satisfied in revision.

1. The overall English of the manuscript needs extensive revision and improvement.

2. The literature review in introduction as well as paper comparisons with previous publications are citing decade old citations which better needs to be from last 5 years or at most from 7-8 years older. Specifically the halophilic fungal diversity and applications needs to be updated.

3. Try to discuss that how these fungi falls in halophilic category by consulting publications such as Hypersaline habitats and halophilic microorganisms, 2016, Maejo International Journal of Science and Technology 10(3):330-345.

4. For the unit of ml or ul, use capital L.

5. Better add a separate conclusions having future perspective of your research.

Reviewer #2: General

The manuscript requires a major rewriting to upgrade the quality of the English language presentation.

The citations in many instances for very old. More recent citations would strengthen the presentation of the manuscript.

For the first presentation of the genus and species of an organism, the genus and species should be spelled out. For subsequent occasions the first letter of the genus name can be abbreviated, i.e. Escherichia coli(first presentation) and E. coli (subsequent presentations).

When using "et al." in the manuscript text or reference list, it should be in italics.

Specific comments on the manuscript.

Pg. 4 line 94. The Fig. 1 legend requires more details. The windows should be labeled with an upper case letter designation (i.e. A, B,... ) and text should be provided in the legend to describe what is in each image.

Pg. 4 lines 101 and 102. The two analytical procedures require literature references as was done for the Tecator DS-6 Digester line 103.

Pg. 7 line 163. Is the enzymatic index a standard approach to reporting a quantitative measure of enzyme activity. If so it requires a reference.

Pg. 10 line 215. The Fig. 2 legend does not provide enough detail - see the line 94 comment on Fig. 1.

Pg. 15 line 318. The labes "A" and "B" are not indicated on Fig. 5.

Pg. 16 line 354. Insufficient details is provided in the Fig. 6 legend.

Pg. 19 Line numbers are discontinued with the start of the Discussion section.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Imran Ali

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 13;18(2):e0281623. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281623.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


3 Jan 2023

5. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1:

1. The overall English of the manuscript needs extensive revision and improvement.

## The proposed revision has been made.

2. The literature review in introduction as well as paper comparisons with previous publications are citing decade old citations which better needs to be from last 5 years or at most from 7-8 years older. Specifically, the halophilic fungal diversity and applications needs to be updated.

## I understand that some citations presented in the literature review and discussion of this manuscript are not very up-to-date. After reviewing and researching for more recent publications (2018-2022) on halophilic fungi, most of the recent works have been focused on cell biology, physiological response (particularly stress response, and mechanisms of cellular and molecular adaptation to salinity), and in-depth investigation on metabolic potential of halophilic fungi. We assume they are rather irrelevant to our research scope which focuses on fungal diversity and their biotechnological potential (initial investigation).

We also try to cover the most current research in the field of halophilic fungal diversity by including both early and very new research. However, few recent publications have described fungal diversity in hypersaline environments, for example; Chamekh et al., 2019. (Isolation, identification and enzymatic activity of halotolerant and halophilic fungi from the Great Sebkha of Oran in northwestern of Algeria. Mycobiology. 47(2):230-241), Rashmi et al., 2018. (Fungal diversity of the hypersaline Inland Sea in Qatar. Botanica Marina. 61(6), 595-609., Chung et al., 2019. (Fungi in salterns. J Microbiol. 57(9), 717-724) and Dendouga et al., 2022. (Screening of halotolerant microfungi isolated from hypersaline soils of Algerian Sahara for production of hydrolytic enzymes. J of Biol Res. 95:10167). In addition, up-to-date publication on antimicrobial activity of Penicillium was published (Orfali et al. Anti-microbial activity of dihydroisocoumarin isolated from Wadi Lajab sediment-derived fungus Penicillium chrysogenum: In vitro and In silico study. Molecules. 2022; 27: 3630. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27113630). These publications are cited in our manuscripts (## Line 367-670, 403-408, 434-436).

As suggested, more recent citations would strengthen the presentation of the manuscript. I strongly believe this logic. However, as far as I am concerned, some recent publications on halophilic fungi still cite old publications in order to support their findings/hypotheses, for example, Pupo et al., 2021. (Osmolyte signatures for the protection of Aspergillus sydowii cells under halophilic conditions and osmotic shock. J Fungi. 7, 414. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7060414) as well as publications aforementioned.

In our case, some old references are used because they need to be able to cover the materials. We cited old publications on a case-by-case basis. For example, the methods we followed belong to the original publications which remain applicable nowadays (identification keys of fungi, primer set for PCR amplification, enzyme and antimicrobial assays). Result interpretation, for example, enzyme activity was evaluated by an enzymatic index described by original work of Hankin (900 citations).

In term of diversity of fungal halophiles (either stated on introduction or discussion), we sometimes compare our results or cite literature to decade-old publications because they are relevant to the point we are trying to make. For example, we demonstrated fungal genera found from our sampling sites. These included A. subalbidus and Fusarium which were also reported from two old publications (2006 and 2014). In literature review, we include old citations to introduce fungal genera that have been found from hypersaline environments so far. Similarly, description of characteristics of hypersaline soils, groups of halophiles, stress response to salinity in fungi we cited here were from the original publications. Overall, in my opinion, much more relevant than publication year is the content of the publications cited that cover relevant literature/discussion. We definitely try to cover the most current research in the field of halophilic fungal diversity by including both early and very new research as stated. However, if you have any additional suggestion regarding this matter, I would be very appreciated to correct points you suggest.

3. Try to discuss that how these fungi fall in halophilic category by consulting publications such as Hypersaline habitats and halophilic microorganisms, 2016, Maejo International Journal of Science and Technology 10(3):330-345.

## The proposed correction has been made in the revised version of our manuscript.

4. For the unit of ml or ul, use capital L.

## The proposed corrections have been made in the revised version of our manuscript.

5. Better add a separate conclusion having future perspective of your research.

## The proposed correction has been made in the revised version of our manuscript (line 442-454).

Reviewer #2: General

The manuscript requires a major rewriting to upgrade the quality of the English language presentation.

## The proposed correction has been made in the revised version of our manuscript.

The citations in many instances for very old. More recent citations would strengthen the presentation of the manuscript.

## I understand that some citations presented in the literature review and discussion of this manuscript are not very up-to-date. After reviewing and researching for more recent publications (2018-2022) on halophilic fungi, most of the research works have been focused on cell biology, physiological response (particularly stress response, and mechanisms of cellular and molecular adaptation to salinity), and in-depth investigation on metabolic potential of halophilic fungi. We assume they are rather irrelevant to our scope of research which focuses on fungal diversity and their biotechnological potential (initial investigation).

We also try to cover the most current research in the field of halophilic fungal diversity by including both early and very new research. However, few recent publications have described fungal diversity in hypersaline environments, for example; Chamekh et al., 2019. (Isolation, identification and enzymatic activity of halotolerant and halophilic fungi from the Great Sebkha of Oran in northwestern of Algeria. Mycobiology. 47(2):230-241), Rashmi et al., 2018. (Fungal diversity of the hypersaline Inland Sea in Qatar. Botanica Marina. 61(6), 595-609., Chung et al., 2019. (Fungi in salterns. J Microbiol. 57(9), 717-724) and Dendouga et al., 2022. (Screening of halotolerant microfungi isolated from hypersaline soils of Algerian Sahara for production of hydrolytic enzymes. J of Biol Res. 95:10167). In addition, up-to-date publication on antimicrobial activity of Penicillium was published (Orfali et al. Anti-microbial activity of dihydroisocoumarin isolated from Wadi Lajab sediment-derived fungus Penicillium chrysogenum: In vitro and In silico study. Molecules. 2022; 27: 3630. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27113630). These publications are cited in our manuscripts (## Line 367-670, 403-408, 434-436).

As suggested, more recent citations would strengthen the presentation of the manuscript. I strongly believe this logic. However, as far as I am concerned, some recent publications on halophilic fungi still cite old publications in order to support their findings/hypotheses, for example, Pupo et al., 2021. (Osmolyte signatures for the protection of Aspergillus sydowii cells under halophilic conditions and osmotic shock. J Fungi. 7, 414. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof7060414) as well as publications aforementioned.

In our case, some old references are used because they need to be able to cover the materials. We cited old publications on a case-by-case basis. For example, the methods we followed belong to the original publications which remain applicable nowadays (identification keys of fungi, primer set for PCR amplification, enzyme and antimicrobial assays). Result interpretation, for example, enzyme activity was evaluated by an enzymatic index described by original work of Hankin (900 citations).

In term of diversity of fungal halophiles (either stated on introduction or discussion), we sometimes compare our results or cite literature to decade-old publications because they are relevant to the point we are trying to make. For example, we demonstrated fungal genera found from our sampling sites. These included A. subalbidus and Fusarium which were also reported from two old publications (2006 and 2014). In literature review, we include old citations to introduce fungal genera that have been found from hypersaline environments so far. Similarly, description of characteristics of hypersaline soils, groups of halophiles, stress response to salinity in fungi we cited here were from the original publications which are undoubtedly old. Overall, in my opinion, much more relevant than publication year is the content of the publications cited that cover relevant literature/discussion. We definitely try to cover the most current research in the field of halophilic fungal diversity by including both early and very new research as stated. However, if you have any additional suggestion regarding this matter, I would be very appreciated to correct points you suggest.

For the first presentation of the genus and species of an organism, the genus and species should be spelled out. For subsequent occasions the first letter of the genus name can be abbreviated, i.e., Escherichia coli (first presentation) and E. coli (subsequent presentations).

## The proposed corrections have been made in the revised version of our manuscript (line 26, 66, 173-176, 259-261, 266, 326-327 and discussion).

When using "et al." in the manuscript text or reference list, it should be in italics.

## The proposed corrections have been made in the revised version of our manuscript (line 113, 313 and discussion).

Specific comments on the manuscript.

Pg. 4 line 94. The Fig. 1 legend requires more details. The windows should be labeled with an upper case letter designation (i.e. A, B,... ) and text should be provided in the legend to describe what is in each image.

## The proposed corrections have been made in the revised version of our manuscript (lone 94).

Pg. 4 lines 101 and 102. The two analytical procedures require literature references as was done for the Tecator DS-6 Digester line 103.

## The proposed corrections have been made in the revised version of our manuscript (line 101).

Pg. 7 line 163. Is the enzymatic index a standard approach to reporting a quantitative measure of enzyme activity. If so it requires a reference.

## Yes, the enzymatic index stated in this manuscript is a standard approach to reporting a quantitative measure of enzyme activity as described by Hankin (1975).

The proposed correction has been made in the revised version of our manuscript (line 164).

Pg. 10 line 215. The Fig. 2 legend does not provide enough detail - see the line 94 comment on Fig. 1.

## The proposed correction has been made in the revised version of our manuscript (line 212).

Pg. 15 line 318. The labes "A" and "B" are not indicated on Fig. 5.

## The proposed correction has been made in the revised version of our manuscript (on Fig 5).

Pg. 16 line 354. Insufficient details is provided in the Fig. 6 legend.

## The proposed correction has been made in the revised version of our manuscript (line 349).

Pg. 19 Line numbers are discontinued with the start of the Discussion section.

## The proposed correction has been made in the revised version of our manuscript.

6. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

## The proposed correction has been made.

7. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission.

## The proposed correction has been made.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

William C Nierman

23 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-14572R1Isolation and characterization of halophilic and halotolerant fungi from man-made solar salterns in Pattani province, ThailandPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. %Wingfield%,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Most of the concerns raised by the reviewers in their comments have been well address by the authors in the submitted revised manuscript. Two comments remain inadequately addressed,  that the manuscript would benefit by further enhancing the English presentation as requested by both reviewers, and instances of improper usage of abbreviated genus names remain uncorrected in the manuscript. Suggestions for addressing these issues are provided.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 09 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

William C. Nierman, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Most of the concerns raised by the reviewers in their comments have been well address by the authors in their submitted revised manuscript. Two comments remain inadequately addressed, the manuscript would benefit by further enhancing the English presentation requested by both reviewers, and instances of improper usage of abbreviated genus names remain uncorrected in the manuscript. To assist in preparing a further revised version of the manuscript the following suggestions are offered for consideration by the authors. Line numbers used are those from the Track Changes version of the revised manuscript.

Ln 15-16 replace "physiologistic characteristics" with "levels of salinity"

Ln 18 replace "test" with "testing"

Ln 24 replace "S." with "Staphylococcus"

Ln 26 replace "A." "Aspergillus"

28 replace "interests" with "applications"

Ln 33 after "unicellular" add "yeast"

after "multicellular" add "hyphi"

replace "consisting" with "that grow as"

Ln 36 delete "in the"

Ln 37 after"3.5%' add ", the salinity"

Ln 40 "psu" needs to be defined

Ln 66 replace "C." with "Curvularia"

Ln 80 after “,” add “and with potential”

Ln 82 replace “ interests” with “applications”

Ln 287 after “isolates” add “by the assays employed in the study.”

Ln 385 replace “interest” with “adaptability and production potential og useful enzymes and other biologicals.”

Ln 396 replace “evident” with “reported”

Ln 399 replace “meanwhile” with “while”

Ln 402 replace “index” with “indices”

Ln 414 replace “It could be explained that” with “It is likely that”

Ln 432 After “and also” add “the”

Ln 438 replace “exploration” with “discovery”

Ln 439 after “ fungal strains” delete all and replace with “ and expand the quest for useful enzymes and metabolites to include halotolerant varieties. Mycoviruses may also find biotech applications in modulating the properties of halophilic and halotolerant fungi”

Ln 448 replace “showed” with “were shown”

Ln 450 after “bacteria” add “and” and delete “including”

Ln 451-452 after “mycoviruses” add “are likely to be productive subjects for further investigation.”

Ln 454 replace “interests” with ”applications”

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Feb 13;18(2):e0281623. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281623.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


25 Jan 2023

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

# We have reviewed the reference list and no retracted paper was cited in our manuscript.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Most of the concerns raised by the reviewers in their comments have been well address by the authors in their submitted revised manuscript. Two comments remain inadequately addressed, the manuscript would benefit by further enhancing the English presentation requested by both reviewers, and instances of improper usage of abbreviated genus names remain uncorrected in the manuscript. To assist in preparing a further revised version of the manuscript the following suggestions are offered for consideration by the authors. Line numbers used are those from the Track Changes version of the revised manuscript.

# English presentation of our manuscript has been revised and improved by language editorials from the Publication Clinic Service at Prince of Songkla University. All changes are shown in blue typeface/highlight in our Revised Manuscript with Track Changes. Improper usage of abbreviated genus names was corrected as suggested. All suggestions were applied in our manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers - 2.docx

Decision Letter 2

William C Nierman

30 Jan 2023

Isolation and characterization of halophilic and halotolerant fungi from man-made solar salterns in Pattani Province, Thailand

PONE-D-22-14572R2

Dear Dr. Wingfield,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

William C. Nierman, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

William C Nierman

3 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-14572R2

Isolation and characterization of halophilic and halotolerant fungi from man-made solar salterns in Pattani Province, Thailand

Dear Dr. Wingfield:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. William C. Nierman

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Halotolerance test of the isolated fungi.

    Results were evaluated based on colony diameter after 14 days of growth at 28°C under various NaCl concentrations (0–20%(w/v)).

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Antimicrobial activity of fungi isolated from saltern farms in Pattani Province.

    Antimicrobial activity of ethanolic extracts of the culture broths and mycelia of eight active isolates using the agar well diffusion method.

    (PDF)

    S1 Raw image

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers - 2.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES