4.1 Article

Molecular detection of Candidatus Phytoplasma spp. causing witches' broom disease of acid lime (Citrus aurantifolia) in India

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER INDIA
DOI: 10.1007/s13562-012-0160-z

关键词

Candidatus Phytoplasma; PCR; Acid lime; Witches' broom; India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phytoplasma infected acid lime plants in India develop characteristic symptoms like small chlorotic leaves, multiple sprouting and shortened internodes. Leaves drop prematurely and infected branches have distorted twigs resembling witches' broom appearance which eventually show die-back symptoms. During its first report in 1999, witches' broom disease identification was made on the basis of symptomatology and electron microscopy. However, molecular techniques have proved to be more accurate and reliable for phytoplasma detection than the conventional methods. During survey in the year 2010 six samples were collected from infected acid lime plants showing typical field symptoms from Vidarbha region of Maharastra. Initially, phytoplasma bodies were observed in phloem tissues of all six symptomatic samples under JEM 100S transmission electron microscope and all these six samples were subsequently screened using different set of phytoplasma specific universal primers by nested PCR, a widely recommended molecular technique for phytoplasma detection. In the present study P1/P7 universal phytoplasma-primer set was used for first round of PCR and amplified products were processed separately for nested PCR with three different nested primer pairs viz. R16F2n/R16R2, R16mF2/R16mR1 and fU5/rU3. The presence of phytoplasma was confirmed in all six suspected samples and one representative similar to 1.2 kb size amplicon was sequenced and deposited in GenBank as Candidatus Phytoplasma species AL-M (JQ808143). This is the first report of PCR based molecular detection of phytoplasma-induced witches' broom disease of acid lime (WBDL) in India. Further molecular evaluation to determine the identity to the species level is in progress.

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

4.1
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