Untitled

Complete Genome Sequence of Pseudomonas viridiflava CFBP 1590, Isolated from Diseased Cherry in France

“…Phylogeny based on similarity of housekeeping genes placed the P. viridiflava species within phylogroup 7 (1, 2), which reflects the genomospecies 6 obtained by DNA-DNA hybridization (3). P. viridiflava was originally isolated from a dwarf bean plant in Switzerland and was then reported to be a natural pathogen of a wide range of plants (4), including tomato (5) and the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana (6). Recently, strains of P. viridiflava were isolated also from nonagricultural habitats (7), thus highlighting the adaptation potential of this species.…”

Occurrence of Pseudomonas viridiflava in tomato plants in Uberlândia, Minas Gerais

“…The bacterium Pseudomonas viridiflava (Burkholder) Dowson is the causal agent of leaf bacterial speck (8) and pith necrosis (2, 10) in tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum L.). In 1973, this species was reported by Wilkie et al (22) causing pith necrosis and leaf speck symptoms and was subsequently associated with symptoms in the fruits (6). Pseudomonas viridiflava was described causing leaf bacterial speck on tomato in Greece (5) and the United States (8), as well as pith necrosis in Greece (2, 12), Argentina (1), Portugal (18), Turkey (3, 21), Macedonia (15) and Serbia (17).…”

Are microbes growing on flowers evil? Effects of old flower microbes on fruit set in a wild ginger with one-day flowers, Alpinia japonica (Zingiberaceae)

“…Besides, we found significant negative associations between the proportion of the ASVs of Cluster 6 and fruit set based on the GLMM analysis, while we did not find such associations for seed set. Since Erwinia and Pseudomonas include plant pathogens that trigger abortion of flowers and fruits (Young 1988;Goumas et al 1999;Llontop et al 2020;Marre et al 2022), some of these bacteria might have negatively affected fruit development by infecting a reproductive organ. Their effects may not be as drastic as reported for some flower-infecting pathogens (e.g., Marre et al 2022); it decreased expected fruit set from 0.57 in open control to 0.35.…”