2004
DOI: 10.17660/actahortic.2004.657.80
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improved Molecular Methods for Detection of European Stone Fruit Yellows (Esfy) Phytoplasmas From in Vitro Shoots of Fruit Trees

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although the PCR detection procedure proved more critical than the extraction method in the case of periwinkle samples, a quicker and less expensive DNA extraction method was selected for routine detection in grapevine samples. In another study, two extraction methods involving the use of chloroform/phenol and silica gel were compared for detection of European stone fruit phytoplasma in in vitro samples (Bertaccini et al, 2004): phytoplasmas were detected in some samples after silica gel extraction, while the other method yielded negative results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Although the PCR detection procedure proved more critical than the extraction method in the case of periwinkle samples, a quicker and less expensive DNA extraction method was selected for routine detection in grapevine samples. In another study, two extraction methods involving the use of chloroform/phenol and silica gel were compared for detection of European stone fruit phytoplasma in in vitro samples (Bertaccini et al, 2004): phytoplasmas were detected in some samples after silica gel extraction, while the other method yielded negative results.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As fruit tree phytoplasmas usually occur at low titres and with uneven distribution in infected plants, their detection is difficult. In this context, the development of sensitive but also quick, reliable, and cost-effective methods for detecting fruit-tree phytoplasmas is essential to production of certified propagation materials (Bertaccini et al, 2004).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the beginning of the research of this economically dangerous phytoplasma (Morvan, 1977), many studies have been carried out focusing on optimising its detection (Seemüller, 1976;Lee et al, 1991;Ahrens et al, 1992;Gibb et al, 1994;Bertaccini et al, 2004), on understanding of possibile ways of its transmission (Carraro et al, 1998;Jarausch et al, 1998;Jarausch et al, 1999;Pastore et al, 2001;Thébaud et al, 2009) and on the phytoplasma genome characteristics (Ahrens et al, 1993;Schneider et al, 1995;Lee et al, 1998;Marcone et al, 2001;Seemüller et al, 2004). The risk factors of phytoplasma ESFY occurrence in different regions and orchards were assessed by Thébaud et al (2006), as well as by Ulubaş et al (2007) who reported the differences in ESFY phytoplasma occurrence in extensive and intensive orchards, when in the extensive orchard, the ESFY phytoplasma was detected in 54.8% of the analysed samples, while in the intensive orchard the ESFY phytoplasma was detected in only 3.2% of analysed samples.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%