4.6 Article

A real-time qPCR assay to quantify Fusarium graminearum biomass in wheat kernels

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 111, 期 2, 页码 396-406

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.05049.x

关键词

biomass; Fusarium; head blight; real-time; q-PCR; trichothecene biosynthesis genes; wheat

资金

  1. Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station
  2. Arkansas Biosciences Institute
  3. US Department of Agriculture [59-0790-9-054]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To develop a real-time PCR assay to quantify Fusarium graminearum biomass in blighted wheat kernels. Methods and Results: Primers designed to amplify a gene in the trichothecene biosynthetic cluster (TRI6) were evaluated for sensitivity and specificity. Primer pair Tri6_10F/Tri6_4R specifically and consistently amplified a 245-bp DNA fragment from F. graminearum. A workflow was developed and validated to extract DNA from infested grain. The assay detected as little as 10 mu g of F. graminearum mycelia in 1 g of ground wheat grain with a high correlation between fungal biomass and cycle threshold values (R-2 = 0.9912; P = 0.004). In field-inoculated grain, qPCR measurements of biomass correlated closely with deoxynivalenol levels (R = 0.82, P < 0.0001) and two visual techniques to assess grain quality (R = 0.88, P < 0.0001 and R = 0.81, P < 0.0001). Conclusions: The qPCR assay provided accurate and precise assessments of the amount of F. graminearum biomass in blighted wheat kernels. This method represents a technical advance over other approaches to quantify kernel colonization and real-time PCR detection methodologies for F. graminearum that do not correlate quantification of fungal genomic DNA to biomass. Significance and Impact of the Study: Quantifying F. graminearum biomass, especially low levels of growth associated with kernels that are visually asymptomatic, represents a new approach to screen for resistance to kernel infection, an understudied yet potentially important avenue to reduce the impact of head blight.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据