4.6 Article

A Pathogen Secreted Protein as a Detection Marker for Citrus Huanglongbing

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02041

关键词

citrus greening disease; HLB; effectors; disease diagnosis; antibody-based detection; bacterial secreted proteins

资金

  1. USDA-APHIS [15-8130-0494-CA]
  2. Citrus Research Board [5300-149]
  3. USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [2014-67021-21589, 2016-70016-24833]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The citrus industry is facing an unprecedented crisis due to Huanglongbing (HLB, aka citrus greening disease), a bacterial disease associated with the pathogen Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus (CLas) that affects all commercial varieties. Transmitted by the Asian citrus psyllid (ACP), CLas colonizes citrus phloem, leading to reduced yield and fruit quality, and eventually tree decline and death. Since adequate curative measures are not available, a key step in HLB management is to restrict the spread of the disease by identifying infected trees and removing them in a timely manner. However, uneven distribution of CLas cells in infected trees and the long latency for disease symptom development makes sampling of trees for CLas detection challenging. Here, we report that a CLas secreted protein can be used as a biomarker for detecting HLB infected citrus. Proteins secreted from CLas cells can presumably move along the phloem, beyond the site of ACP inoculation and CLas colonized plant cells, thereby increasing the chance of detecting infected trees. We generated a polyclonal antibody that effectively binds to the secreted protein and developed serological assays that can successfully detect CLas infection. This work demonstrates that antibody-based diagnosis using a CLas secreted protein as the detection marker for infected trees offers a high-throughput and economic approach that complements the approved quantitative polymerase chain reaction-based methods to enhance HLB management programs.

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