4.5 Article

Characterization, genetic diversity and distribution of Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris races causing black rot disease in cruciferous crops of India

期刊

PLANT PATHOLOGY
卷 65, 期 9, 页码 1411-1418

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ppa.12508

关键词

Brassica; crucifers; genetic diversity; races; rep-PCR; Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Black rot, caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris (Xcc) is a disease of crucifer crops. The objective of this study was to characterize races of Xcc, their distribution and genetic diversity in India. Two hundred and seventeen isolates of bacteria were obtained from 12 different black rot-infected crucifer crops from 19 states of India; these were identified as Xcc based on morphology, hrpF gene and 16S rRNA gene based molecular markers and pathogenicity tests. Characterization of races was performed by using a set of seven differential crucifer hosts, comprising two cultivars of turnip (Brassica rapa var. rapa) and cultivars of Indian mustard (B. juncea), Ethiopian mustard (B. carinata), rapeseed mustard (B. napus), cauliflower (B. oleracea) and Savoy cabbage (B. oleracea var. sabauda). Races 1, 4 and 6 of Xcc were identified and, among these races, race 1 followed by race 4 dominated most of the states of India. Genetic diversity of the Indian isolates of Xcc was analysed using repetitive sequence-based PCR (rep-PCR) including primers for REP (repetitive extragenic palindromic), ERIC (enterobacterial repetitive intergenic consensus) and BOX (amplifying with BOX A1 R primer) repetitive elements. This method of fingerprinting grouped the isolates into 56 different DNA types (clusters) with a 75% similarity coefficient. Among these clusters, DNA types 22 and 53 contained two different races 1 and 4, whereas DNA type 12 contained races 1, 4 and 6. However, no clear relationship was observed between fingerprints and races, hosts or geographical origin.

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