4.4 Article

Euphresco Sendo: An international laboratory comparison study of molecular tests for Synchytrium endobioticum detection and identification

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PLANT PATHOLOGY
Volume 151, Issue 3, Pages 757-766

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10658-017-1411-6

Keywords

Validation; Test Performance Study Inter-laboratory comparison study; EPPO Diagnostic Standard; Potato wart disease

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An international test performance study (TPS) was organised to generate validation data for three molecular Synchytrium endobioticum tests: van den Boogert et al. (European Journal of Plant Pathology 113, 47-57, 2005), and van Gent-Pelzer et al. (European Journal of Plant Pathology, 126, 129-133, 2010) for the detection of S. endobioticum, and the pathotype 1(D1) identification test described by Bonants et al. (European Journal of Plant Pathology, 143, 495-506, 2015). Two TPS rounds were organised focussing on different test matrices, i.e. round 1: warted potato tissue, and round 2: resting spore suspensions. When using the tests for detection and identification of S. endobioticum in warted potato tissue, no significant differences were observed for diagnostic sensitivity, diagnostic specificity, overall accuracy, analytical sensitivity and robustness. When using the tests for detection and identification of S. endobioticum in resting spore suspensions, the van den Boogert and van Gent-Pelzer tests significantly outperform the Bonants test for diagnostic sensitivity and diagnostic specificity. For overall accuracy and analytical sensitivity, the van Gent-Pelzer significantly outperforms the van den Boogert and Bonants tests and is regarded as the test of choice when identifying S. endobioticum from resting spores. Tests regarded fit for purpose for routine testing of wart material and resting spore suspensions are proposed for the update of EPPO standard PM7/28(1) Synchytrium endobioticum.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available