4.4 Article

Alternaria alternata apple pathotype (A-mali) causes black spot of European pear

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PLANT PATHOLOGY
卷 145, 期 4, 页码 787-795

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10658-016-0866-1

关键词

Alternaria alternata apple pathotype; AM-toxin I; AM-toxin synthetase gene (AMT); Black spot of European pear; Multiplex PCR

资金

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16H04874] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A disease caused by Alternaria alternata occurred on the leaves of European pear cultivar Le Lectier in Niigata Prefecture, Japan, and was named black spot of European pear. In conidial inoculation tests, the causal pathogen induced not only small black lesions on the leaves of European pear cultivar Le Lectier, but severe lesions on the leaves of apple cultivar Red Gold, which is susceptible to the A. alternata apple pathotype (previously called A. mali) causing Alternaria blotch of apple. Interestingly, the apple pathotype isolate showed the same pathogenicity as the European pear pathogen. HPLC analysis of the culture filtrates revealed that A. alternata causing black spot of European pear produced AM-toxin I, known as a host-specific toxin of the A. alternata apple pathotype. AM-toxin I induced veinal necrosis on leaves of Le Lectier and General Leclerc cultivars, both susceptible to the European pear pathogen, at 5 x 10(-7) M and 10(-6) M respectively, but did not affect leaves of resistant cultivars at 10(-4) M. PCR analysis with primers that specifically amplify the AM-toxin synthetase gene detected the product of expected size in the pathogen. These results indicate that A. alternata causing black spot of European pear is identical to that causing Alternaria blotch of apple. This is the first report of European pear disease caused by the A. alternata apple pathotype. This study provides a multiplex PCR protocol, which could serve as a useful tool, for the epidemiological survey of these two diseases in European pear and apple orchards.

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

4.4
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