4.6 Article

Pathogenicity and Relative Abundance of Dickeya and Pectobacterium Species in Switzerland: An Epidemiological Dichotomy

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 9, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms9112270

关键词

potato; blackleg; Soft Rot Pectobacteriaceae; pathogenicity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pectobacterium and Dickeya species are causal agents of blackleg and soft rot diseases in potatoes. P. brasiliense has shown a drastic increase in abundance in most European countries in the past decade, despite not necessarily being the most virulent. Pathogenicity alone does not explain the prevalence of certain species in Swiss potato fields.
Pectobacterium and Dickeya species are the causal agents of blackleg and soft rot diseases in potatoes. The main pathogenic species identified so far on potatoes are Dickeya dianthicola, Dickeya solani, Pectobacterium atrosepticum, Pectobacterium brasiliense, Pectobacterium carotovorum, and Pectobacterium parmentieri. Ten years ago, the most prevalent Soft Rot Pectobacteriaceae in Europe were the Dickeya species, P. atrosepticum and P. carotovorum, with some variations among countries. Since then, a drastic increase in the abundance of P. brasiliense has been observed in most European countries. This shift is difficult to explain without comparing the pathogenicity of all Dickeya and Pectobacterium species. The pathogenicity of all the above-mentioned bacterial species was assessed in field trials and in vitro tuber slice trials in Switzerland. Two isolates of each species were inoculated by soaking tubers of cv. Desiree in a suspension of 10(5) CFU/mL, before planting in the field. For all trials, the Dickeya species were the most virulent ones, but long-term strain surveys performed in Switzerland indicate that P. brasiliense is currently the most frequent species detected. Our results show that the pathogenicity of the species is not the main factor explaining the high prevalence of P. brasiliense and P. parmentieri in the Swiss potato fields.

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

4.6
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