4.5 Article

Comparison of genetic diversity and pathogenicity of fusarium head blight pathogens from China and Europe by SSCP and seedling assays on wheat

期刊

PLANT PATHOLOGY
卷 57, 期 4, 页码 642-651

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3059.2008.01824.x

关键词

AFLP; Fusarium asiaticum; Fusarium graminearum; Fusarium meridionale; SCAR/SSCP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The genetic diversity and pathogenicity of isolates of Fusarium graminearum and F. asiaticum isolated from wheat heads in China were examined and compared with those of isolates of F. graminearum, F. asiaticum and F. meridionale from Europe, USA and Nepal. Genetic diversity was assessed by SSCP (single strand conformation polymorphism) and AFLP (amplified fragment length polymorphism) analysis and by molecular chemotyping. SSCP analysis of the Fg16F/Fg16R PCR amplicon differentiated F. graminearum, F. asiaticum and F. meridionale and revealed three haplotypes among sequence-characterized amplified region (SCAR) type 1 F. graminearum isolates. AFLP analysis showed a high level of genetic diversity and clustered the majority of Chinese isolates in one group along with other isolates of Asian origin. The second cluster contained F. graminearum isolates from China, Europe and the USA. Of the Chinese isolates, 79% were F. asiaticum and 81% of these were of the 3-AcDON chemotype, with only 9.5% of either chemotype 15-AcDON or NIV. All the Chinese and USA isolates of F. graminearum were 15-AcDON, whereas among the isolates from Europe, 21% were NIV and 8% were 3-AcDON chemotype. No evidence was found for possible differences in aggressiveness between F. graminearum and F. asiaticum. Highly aggressive isolates were present in each region and no evidence was found for any association between aggressiveness and geographical origin or chemotype among the isolates examined. No difference was observed in pathogenicity towards wheat seedlings between Chinese isolates and those from Europe, the USA or Nepal.

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

4.5
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