4.2 Article

Molecular characterization, morphology, and pathogenicity of Alternaria panax from araliaceous plants in Korea

期刊

MYCOLOGICAL PROGRESS
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 383-396

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11557-012-0844-8

关键词

AFLP analysis; Alternaria blight; Phylogenetic analysis; Sporulation

类别

资金

  1. Regional Subgenebank Support Program of the Rural Development Administration (RDA), Republic of Korea

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Alternaria blight on araliaceous plants is a common disease caused by Alternaria panax Whetzel and occurs worldwide. Genetic diversity among 58 isolates of A. panax from different araliaceous hosts in Korea was determined by amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) analysis. Selected isolates from genetic groups (determined by AFLP analysis) were examined based on the results of phylogenetic analyses of eight genes (Alt a1, BT1, BT2, EF-1 alpha, gpd, H3, ITS, and RPB2), morphological characteristics, and pathogenicity tests. Isolates were divided into two distinct genetic groups (A and B) by AFLP analysis and based on the results of sequence analyses of the BT1, BT2, gpd, and RPB2 genes. Isolates from ginseng plants (Panax ginseng and P. quinquefolius) fell into group B, whereas isolates from the other araliaceous plants clustered in group A. Morphologically, although some overlap was observed among isolates in the two groups, isolates in group B had longer and narrower conidia, distinct sporulation patterns at 15 A degrees C, and did not secrete pigment into PDA media. Pathogenicity tests revealed that isolates in groups A and B only induced severe disease symptoms on leaves of their hosts, such as isolates in group A on Aralia elata, Aralia continentalis, and in group B on Panax ginseng. The results indicate that the two genetic groups of Alternaria from araliaceous plants should be considered as two different species, and we propose that group A is a candidate of new Alternaria species distinguished from A. panax.

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

4.2
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