2014
DOI: 10.1111/jam.12585
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A comprehensive comparison of assays for detection and identification of Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 biovar 2

Abstract: Aims: To determine the reliable combination of protocols for specific detection and identification of R. solanacearum race 3 biovar 2 (R3bv2) through a comprehensive comparison among currently available techniques. Methods and Results: Sensitivity and specificity of the conventional isolation, bioassay, serological assays, conventional and real-time PCR and multiplex PCR were assessed for the detection of 25 strains of R. solanacearum biovars 1, 2 and 3 (Phylotypes I, II, III and IV) in spiked potato saps. Res… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
(58 reference statements)
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Gutarra et al (2017) describe their research on the diversity of the species and key information for the species/strains/biovar/phylotype/sequevar identification. Li et al (2014) provide details on sensitivity and specificity of the methods used for comparisons of the detection and identification assays in the laboratory for testing the potato samples for the presence of the causal agent of potato brown rot.…”
Section: Laboratory Testing and Pest Identificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Gutarra et al (2017) describe their research on the diversity of the species and key information for the species/strains/biovar/phylotype/sequevar identification. Li et al (2014) provide details on sensitivity and specificity of the methods used for comparisons of the detection and identification assays in the laboratory for testing the potato samples for the presence of the causal agent of potato brown rot.…”
Section: Laboratory Testing and Pest Identificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The detection limit for R. solanacearum with immunofluorescence, for example, is about 10 4 to 10 5 cfu mL À1 in pellet extract (Janse, 1988;Elphinstone et al, 1996;Vreeburg et al, 2016;van Vaerenbergh et al, 2017), while the detection limit of a pathogenicity test of R. solanacearum (referred to as race 3, biovar 2 in articles) in tomato plants is between 2 9 10 2 and 10 5 cfu mL À1 (Janse, 1988;Elphinstone et al, 1996;Li et al, 2014). The detection limit for R. solanacearum with immunofluorescence, for example, is about 10 4 to 10 5 cfu mL À1 in pellet extract (Janse, 1988;Elphinstone et al, 1996;Vreeburg et al, 2016;van Vaerenbergh et al, 2017), while the detection limit of a pathogenicity test of R. solanacearum (referred to as race 3, biovar 2 in articles) in tomato plants is between 2 9 10 2 and 10 5 cfu mL À1 (Janse, 1988;Elphinstone et al, 1996;Li et al, 2014).…”
Section: Potato Lot Ct Valuementioning
confidence: 99%
“…An infection with potato brown rot or potato ring rot can be verified by immunofluorescence and should be confirmed with a pathogenicity test. The detection limit for R. solanacearum with immunofluorescence, for example, is about 10 4 to 10 5 cfu mL À1 in pellet extract (Janse, 1988;Elphinstone et al, 1996;Vreeburg et al, 2016;van Vaerenbergh et al, 2017), while the detection limit of a pathogenicity test of R. solanacearum (referred to as race 3, biovar 2 in articles) in tomato plants is between 2 9 10 2 and 10 5 cfu mL À1 (Janse, 1988;Elphinstone et al, 1996;Li et al, 2014). For C. michiganensis subsp.…”
Section: Potato Lot Ct Valuementioning
confidence: 99%
“…General protocols that rely on the evolution of PCR techniques are also available, such as qPCR (Weller et al, 2000; Ozakman and Schaad, 2003; Smith and De Boer, 2009; Inoue and Nakaho, 2014) or LAMP PCR (Lenarcic et al, 2014). Specific protocols have been designed to target a particular group of strains or ecotypes of the Rssc, such as brown rot strains (Fegan et al, 1998; Weller et al, 2000; Ozakman and Schaad, 2003; Smith and De Boer, 2009; Kubota et al, 2011; Ha et al, 2012; Li et al, 2014; Kubota and Jenkins, 2015; Stulberg et al, 2015); Moko strains (Prior and Fegan, 2005a; Cellier et al, 2015); and Blood Disease Bacterium (BDB) strains (Kubota et al, 2011). These diagnostic methods are primarily limited to the detection of strains associated with the brown rot ecotype (Li et al, 2014); however, the Rssc presents a wide diversity of strains.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%