Advertisement

Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 23–26 | Cite as

Molecular diagnosis of mycoplasma-like organisms (MLOs) in plants

A review
  • Robert E. Davis
  • James P. Prince
Article

Abstract

Worldwide, yellows diseases impact plants important in human nutrition, the natural environment, and the culture and commerce of humans. Since the presumed pathogens, mycoplasma-like organisms (MLOs), have not been isolated in pure culture in vitro, their study must proceed by other experimental approaches. In a study of disease affecting grapevines in Europe and North America, polymerase chain reactions (PCR) and restriction analyses of PCR-amplified DNA were used to detect and differentiate strains of MLOs associated with grapevine yellows. MLOs were detected both in naturally diseased grapevines and in experimentally inoculated host plants. The data indicated an unexpected genomic diversity among grapevine-infecting MLOs, and supported their classification with MLOs in the aster yellows, X-disease, and elm yellows groups. The presence of diverse MLOs in grapevines provokes consideration that these MLOs may be present in overlapping geographic ranges and that multiple MLO infections may occur in individual plants, increasing the complexity of grapevine yellows epidemiology and control and the significance of sensitive MLO detection in planting stock and phytosanitary-regulated germplasm.

Index Entries

Detection mollicutes grapevine yellows flave-scence dorée mycoplasmas epidemiology etiology 16S rRNA gene RFLP analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Lee, I.-M. and Davis, R. E. (1992), inMycoplasmas: Molecular Biology and Pathogenesis, (Maniloff, J., McElhansey, R., Finch, L. R., and Baseman, J. B., eds), American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC, pp. 379–390.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahrens, U. and Seemüller, E. (1992),Phytopathology 82, 828–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Daire, X., Boudon-Padieu, E., Berville, A., Schneider, B., and Caudwell, A. (1992),Ann. Appl. Biol. 121, 95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davis, R. E., Lee, I.-M., Dally, E. L., Dewitt, N., and Douglas, S. M. (1988),Acta Hortic 234, 115–122.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis, R. E., Prince, J. P., Hammond, R. W., Dally, E. L., and Lee, I.-M., (1992),Petria 2, 184–193.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee, I.-M., Davis, R. E., Chen, T.-A., Chiykowski, L. N., Fletcher, J., Hiruki, C., and Schaff, D. A. (1992),Phytopathology 82, 977–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee, I.-M., Hammond, R. W., Davis, R. E., and Gundersen, D. E. (1993),Phytopathology 83, 834–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Prince, J. P., Davis, R. E., Wolf, T. K., Lee, I.-M., Mogen, B. D., Dally, E. L., Bertaccini, A., Credi, R., and Barba, M. (1993),Phytopathology (in press).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis, R. E., Dally, E. L., Bertaccini, A., Credi, R., Lee, I.-M., Osler, R., Carraro, L., and Barba, M. (1992),Phytopathol. Medit. 31, 5–12.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis, R. E., Bertaccini, A., Prince, J. P., and Vibio, M. (1993),Phytopathol. Medit. 32, 149–152.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davis, R. E., Dally, E. L., Bertaccini, A., Lee, I.-M., Credi, R., Osier, R., Savino, V., Carraro, L., DiTerlizzi, B., and Barba, M. (1993),Phytopathology 83, 772–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prince, J. P., Davis, R. E., Mogen, B. D., Dally, E. L., Lee, I.-M., Di Terlizzi, B., Savino, V., Barba, M., Bertaccini, A., Osier, R., and Carraro, L. (1992),Phytopathology 82, 1170.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prince, J. P., Davis, R. E., Wolf, T. K., Lee, I.-M., Mogen, B. D., Dally, E. L. (1993),Phytopathology 83, 1130–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Humana Press Inc 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert E. Davis
    • 1
  • James P. Prince
    • 1
  1. 1.Molecular Plant Pathology LaboratoryPlant Sciences Institute, Agricultural Research Seruice-USDABeltsuille

Personalised recommendations