4.7 Article

A Fresh Look at Grape Powdery Mildew (Erysiphe necator) A and B Genotypes Revealed Frequent Mixed Infections and Only B Genotypes in Flag Shoot Samples

Journal

PLANTS-BASEL
Volume 9, Issue 9, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants9091156

Keywords

overwintering; population structure; sympatric genetic differentiation; temporal isolation; vineyards; Vitis vinifera

Categories

Funding

  1. Szechenyi 2020 programme
  2. European Regional Development Fund
  3. Hungarian Government [GINOP-2.3.2-15-2016-00061]
  4. Janos Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Erysiphe necator populations, causing powdery mildew of grapes, have a complex genetic structure. Two genotypes, A and B, were identified in most vineyards across the world on the basis of fixed single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in several DNA regions. It was hypothesized that A populations overwinter as mycelia in grapevine buds, giving rise to so-called flag shoots in spring, and are more sensitive to fungicides than B populations, which overwinter as ascospores and become widespread later in the season. Other studies concluded that the biological significance of these genotypes is unclear. In the spring of 2015, there was a unique opportunity to collect E. necator samples from flag shoots in Hungary. The same grapevines were sampled in summer and autumn as well. A total of 182 samples were genotyped on the basis of beta-tubulin (TUB2), nuclear ribosomal DNA (nrDNA) intergenic spacer (IGS), and internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequences. Genotypes of 56 samples collected in 2009-2011 were used for comparison. Genotype A was not detected at all in spring, and was present in only 19 samples in total, mixed with genotype B, and sometimes with another frequently found genotype, designated as B2. These results did not support the hypothesis about temporal isolation of the two genotypes and indicated that these are randomly distributed in vineyards.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available