4.5 Article

Biochemical and molecular diversity among Erwinia isolates from potato in Algeria

Journal

PLANT PATHOLOGY
Volume 52, Issue 1, Pages 28-40

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-3059.2003.00791.x

Keywords

biochemical characterization; Erwinia; PCR; RFLP; soft rot; variability

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The variability within a collection of 100 isolates of Erwinia collected from various potato cultivars and locations in Algeria was studied using physiological, biochemical and molecular tests. The comparison of their biochemical characteristics with those of the type isolates CFBP 1526 (E. carotovora ssp. atroseptica ), CFBP 2046 (E. carotovora ssp. carotovora ) and CFBP 2048 (E. chrysanthemi ) indicated that all the isolates collected in Algeria belonged to the species E . carotovora . They included 40 typical E. carotovora ssp. carotovora and 14 E. carotovora ssp. atroseptica ; the remaining 46 isolates could not be classified as E. carotovora ssp. atroseptica or ssp. carotovora , even though they were true Erwinia. Amplification of total genomic DNA with the primers Y1 and Y2, specific for E. carotovora , yielded an amplified fragment of the expected size in 99 isolates. The primers Y45 and Y46 specifically amplified a 439-bp DNA fragment in all E. carotovora ssp. atroseptica isolates tested, but not in isolates of the other E. carotovora subspecies or in atypical isolates, as expected from the characteristics of these primers. The digestion patterns of the 99 amplified products with the restriction enzymes Alu I, Hae II, Hpa II and Sau3A I yielded 12 RFLP groups, three of which were undescribed. The 14 isolates of E. carotovora ssp. atroseptica shared a single restriction pattern (RFLP group 1), while the typical isolates of E. carotovora ssp. carotovora and the atypical isolates composed the remaining groups (3, 4, 8-10, 12, 14, 22 and 25-27), reflecting the heterogeneity among these isolates.

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