4.5 Article

Identification and characterization of bacteria isolated from crown galls on stone fruits in Poland

Journal

PLANT PATHOLOGY
Volume 65, Issue 6, Pages 1034-1043

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ppa.12482

Keywords

Agrobacterium; agrocin 84; MLSA; Pararhizobium; Rhizobium

Funding

  1. Polish Scientific Committee (KBN) [118/N-COST/2008/0]
  2. National Science Centre, Poland [DEC-2013/08/M/NZ9/00138]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Eighty stone fruit nurseries located in different regions of Poland were examined for the presence of crown gall affected plants. The disease was observed in 39 nurseries, and galls were sampled for bacterial isolation. Out of 1213 isolates, 409 were pre-identified as Agrobacterium/Rhizobium spp. with 23S rDNA-based multiplex PCR, and out of these, 315 were pathogenic when tested on sunflowers. Sequence analysis of three housekeeping genes (fusA, recA, rpoD) revealed that 366 strains belonged to Rhizobium rhizogenes, 23 to Agrobacterium tumefaciens species complex, and the rest of the strains were allocated to new phylogenetic lineages. Of these, the most numerous was the lineage allocated in the Pararhizobium genus. Positive results obtained from pathogenicity tests were generally in agreement with results obtained by PCR with primers complementary to T-DNA except for two strains, which were positive for PCR but negative for the pathogenicity test. All detected Ti plasmids were nopaline-type. Independent of their pathogenicity, 59% of tested strains were not sensitive to agrocin 84 in in vitro tests. Analysis of biochemical and physiological features distinguished 50 groups with different phenotypic profiles, but the tested traits were not consistent for strains classified to one taxon. This finding shows limited value of biochemical tests in identification procedures. The bacteria causing tumours were heterogeneous and strains classified to different taxa were found even in a single tumour.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available