4.7 Article

Characterization of Erwinia chrysanthemi from a bacterial heart rot of pineapple outbreak in Hawaii

期刊

PLANT DISEASE
卷 92, 期 10, 页码 1444-1450

出版社

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/PDIS-92-10-1444

关键词

-

资金

  1. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
  2. CSREES National Plant Diagnostic Network (Western Region)
  3. USDA Tropical and Subtropical Agricultural Research (T-STAR) [2004-34135-15195]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The first reported outbreak of bacterial heart rot of pineapple (Ananas comosus var comosus) in Hawaii occurred in December 2003. Of immediate concern was the differentiation of heart rot caused by Erwinia chrysanthemi from a soft rot caused by E. carotovora subsp. carotovora because Of regulatory issues. presumptive identifications of the isolated bacteria were made using bacteriological tests (including reactivity with all Erwinia-specific monoclonal antibody. E2) and compared with identifications obtained by two general methods: carbon Source utilization profiling (Biolog) and 16S rDNA sequence analysis. The panel of bacteriological tests consistently differentiated E. chrysanthemi from E. carotovora subsp. carotovora and other nonquarantine organisms. BOX-polymerase chain reaction fingerprint patterns further differentiated the pineapple-isolated E. chrysanthemi strains front those obtained from other plants and irrigation water. Pineapple leaf inoculations revealed that only E. chrysanthemi from pineapple produced watersoaking and rot similar to that observed oil the original symptomatic plants. thus identifying,, these strains as the causal agents of the outbreak. In this situation. where rapid identification of all unknown pathogen was necessary. standard bacteriological tests then available in the laboratory provided reliable differentiation of E. chrysanthemi from E. carotovora subsp. carotovora. Additional strain characterization is needed before the pineapple-isolated E. chrysanthemi strains can be classified into it species of the new genus

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

4.7
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