4.1 Article

ITS-RFLP analysis, an efficient tool for differentiation of Bursaphelenchus species

期刊

NEMATOLOGY
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 649-668

出版社

BRILL
DOI: 10.1163/156854108/399182

关键词

ITS microheterogeneity; intraspecific types; molecular diagnosis; pine wood nematode (PWN); species identification

类别

资金

  1. European Union FP5 programme [QLK5-CT-2002-00672]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Restriction analysis of amplified ribosomal ITS sequences has provided species-specific fragment patterns for nematodes of several genera, including Bursaphelenchus. We used restriction enzymes RsaI, HaeIII, MspI, HinfI and AluI to produce ITS-RFLP reference profiles of 44 Bursaphelenchus species, including two intraspecific types in each of B. mucronatus and B. leoni. In addition, reference profiles of Aphelenchoides stammeri and Ruehmaphelenchus asiaticus were produced. Reference profiles of six species are shown here for the first time. Identical ITS-RFLP patterns were usually obtained from different isolates and from individual specimens of the same species. However, in the case of B. 'corneolus', B. lini, B. singaporensis and B. sexdentati, additional bands in the patterns of certain isolates or individual nematodes were observed which may be explained by ITS sequence microheterogeneity, i.e., the presence of ITS sequence variants within the number of rDNA tandem repeats. Since these 'extra' bands appeared only with one out of the five restriction enzymes employed, they did not seriously impair identification of species based on the overall reference patterns. ITS-RFLP analysis has proved valuable for differentiation of the pathogenic pine wood nematode, B. xylophilus, from related species. In many recent descriptions of new Bursaphelenchus species, ITS-RFLP profiles have been used as additional species identification criteria. Comparison of profiles from isolates of many different origins has provided new information on intraspecific types or genetically distinct provenances of several Bursaphelenchus species.

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