mRNA from selected genes is useful for specific detection and quantification of viable <i>Xanthomonas citri</i> subsp. <i>citri</i>

Golmohammadi, M.; Llop, Pablo; Scuderi, G; Gell, I.; Graham, James H.; Cubero, Jaime

doi:10.1111/j.1365-3059.2011.02526.x

Cited by 12 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…citri using non-specific DNA-binding SYBR Green dye (Mavrodieva et al, 2004) or a specific fluorescent probe such as TaqMan (Cubero and Graham, 2005;Golmohammadi et al, 2012). Several real-time PCR assays have been developed to detect and quantify X. citri pv.…”

Section: Nucleic Acid Amplificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pest survey card on Xanthomonas citri pv. citri and pv. aurantifolii

Vos¹,

Camilleri²,

Diakaki³

2019

EFS3

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This pest survey card was prepared in the context of the EFSA mandate on plant pest surveillance (M-2017-0137), upon request by the European Commission. The purpose of this document is to assist the Member States in planning annual survey activities of quarantine organisms using a statistically sound and risk-based pest survey approach, in line with the current international standards. The data requirements for such activity include the pest distribution, its host range, its biology, risk factors as well as available detection and identification methods. This document is part of a toolkit that consists of pest-specific documents, such as the pest survey cards and generic documents relevant for all pests to be surveyed, including, the general survey guidelines and statistical software such as RiBESS+.

show abstract

Section: Nucleic Acid Amplificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pest survey card on Xanthomonas citri pv. citri and pv. aurantifolii

Vos¹,

Camilleri²,

Diakaki³

2019

EFS3

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…host range-restricted strains-see below) (Vernière et al, 1998) and could cross-react with unrelated xanthomonads (Alvarez et al, 1991). citri strains using non-specific DNA-binding SYBR Green dye (Mavrodieva et al, 2004) or specific fluorescent probe such as TaqMan (Cubero and Graham, 2005;Golmohammadi et al, 2012a). Several PCR-based diagnostic tools were developed with the aim of specifically detecting X. citri pv.…”

Section: Detection and Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs) are inadequate for detecting low bacterial population sizes but could be used from symptomatic material (Alvarez, 2004). citri and showed a sensitivity level equivalent to that of Q-PCR methods targeting DNA (Golmohammadi et al, 2012a). citri strains: primers KingF/R (Kingsley and Fritz, 2000), J-RXg/c2 (Cubero and Graham, 2002), Xac01/02 (Coletta-Filho et al, 2006), XACF/R (Park et al, 2006), or X. citri CBC-inducing strains, i.e.…”

Section: Detection and Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific Opinion on the risk to plant health of Xanthomonas citri pv. citri and Xanthomonas citri pv. aurantifolii for the EU territory

2014

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Panel conducted a pest risk assessment for Xanthomonas campestris (all strains pathogenic to Citrus) for the EU territory and an assessment of the effectiveness of present EU requirements against Xanthomonas strains pathogenic to citrus. The risk assessment was conducted under the scenario of absence of the current specific EU plant health legislation and the assumption that citrus-exporting countries apply measures to reduce yield and quality losses. Risk reduction options were systematically identified and evaluated. The strains of X. campestris pathogenic to citrus have been reclassified as four distinct infraspecific taxa within two species: X. citri and X. alfalfae. Only two pathovars (X. citri pv. citri and X. citri pv. aurantifolii) are responsible for the citrus bacterial canker that presents a major risk for the citrus industry in the EU. Seven entry pathways have been identified and evaluated. The likelihood of entry was rated unlikely for fruit, very likely for fruit plants for planting, moderately likely for ornamental plants for planting and unlikely for leaves and twigs. The uncertainty of probability of entry was rated as high. The probability of establishment was rated as moderately likely to likely with a medium uncertainty because host plants are widely present in EU areas where environmental conditions are suitable. Once established, spread would be likely with a low uncertainty. The impact of the disease, even if control measures are applied, was rated as moderate to major with a medium uncertainty. The disease would cause yield losses in areas where citrus is the main crop, increase the need for control measures and create environmental problems.The combined EU regulations have been shown to be effective in preventing the introduction of X. citri pv. citri or X. citri pv. aurantifolii in the EU, as no outbreaks of citrus canker in the EU territory have been reported. Vernière for the preparatory work on this Scientific Opinion and EFSA staff: Svetla Kozelska, Tilemachos Goumperis and Olaf Mosbach Schulz for the support provided to this Scientific Opinion. Xanthomonas citri pv. citri and Xanthomonas citri pv. aurantifolii pest risk assessment EFSA Journal 2014;12(2):3556 4 Xanthomonas citri pv. citri and Xanthomonas citri pv. aurantifolii pest risk assessment EFSA Journal 2014;12(2):3556 6importance of maintaining the absence of X. citri pv. citri and X. citri pv. aurantifolii in citrusproducing areas and of the risk reduction options to maintain this absence.The effectiveness of current EU phytosanitary measures to reduce the risk of introduction of X. citri pv. citri and X. citri pv. aurantifolii ranges from moderate to high. However, the requirements for buffer zones of pest free production sites in areas infested by X. citri pv. citri or X. citri pv. aurantifolii are insufficiently detailed.The probability of entry of X. citri pv. citri and X. citri pv. aurantifolii via import of plants for planting for citrus production and of ornamental rutaceous plants (species listed in section 3.1...

show abstract

“…; Golmohammadi et al. ). Because of the importance of the disease and the absence from citrus growing regions with Mediterranean‐type climates, it is critical to be able to detect (and often quantify) Xcc for both epidemiological studies and for purposes of regulation (Gottwald et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…; Golmohammadi et al. ). The disease has led to trade restrictions on citrus from affected areas (Anon , ; Lopez et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

A Comparison of Pathogen Isolation in Culture and Injection–infiltration Bioassay of Citrus Leaves for DetectingXanthomonas citrisubsp.citri

Bock¹,

Gottwald²,

Graham

2013

Journal of Phytopathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citrus canker [caused by Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri (Xcc)] can cause yield loss of susceptible citrus and result in trade restrictions of fresh fruit. For both regulatory purposes and epidemiological studies, accurate detection and quantification of viable inoculum are critical. Two accepted methods used to detect and quantify Xcc are injection–infiltration bioassay and culture, but these two methods have not been directly compared using field‐obtained samples. The two methods were compared using washates of lesions taken from fruit, leaves and shoots in a commercial orchard in Florida in 2009–2010 and 2010–2011, with bioassay being the assumed standard. Despite some misclassifications, true positives (sensitivity) and true negatives (specificity) were the dominant classes using culture. False positives for lesions from shoots ranged from 13.1 to 21.4% in 2009–2010 and 2010–2011, respectively, and false positives for lesions from fruit and leaves ranged from 4.3 to 15.7%, in the two seasons, respectively. The false positive rate for culture compared with injection–infiltration bioassay was highest (0.16–0.55), due to more frequent recovery of Xcc by culture at ≤103 colony‐forming units (CFU) Xcc per ml. The false negative rate was consistently lower (0.02–0.21), confirming that in only a few cases did culture fail to detect Xcc when it was present. The area under the curve for receiver operator characteristic analysis ranged from 0.80 to 0.97, confirming that culture provided an accurate diagnosis in most cases. There was a higher frequency of lesions from shoots with a CFU ≤103 Xcc compared with lesions from fruit or leaves, making culture more effective at detecting these. The data demonstrate that culture is a reliable way to detect and quantify Xcc compared with injection–infiltration bioassay, particularly when the CFU is ≤103 Xcc per ml.

show abstract

mRNA from selected genes is useful for specific detection and quantification of viable Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri

Cited by 12 publications

References 40 publications

Pest survey card on Xanthomonas citri pv. citri and pv. aurantifolii

Pest survey card on Xanthomonas citri pv. citri and pv. aurantifolii

Scientific Opinion on the risk to plant health of Xanthomonas citri pv. citri and Xanthomonas citri pv. aurantifolii for the EU territory

A Comparison of Pathogen Isolation in Culture and Injection–infiltration Bioassay of Citrus Leaves for DetectingXanthomonas citrisubsp.citri

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About