American Potato Journal

, Volume 63, Issue 10, pp 533–543 | Cite as

Evaluation of immunofluorescence with monoclonal antibodies for detecting latent bacterial ring rot infections

  • S. H. De Boer
  • M. E. McNaughton


Corynebacterium sepedonicum was detected in symptomless potato stems and tubers with immunofluorescence using monoclonal antibodies specific for the bacterial ring rot pathogen. The concentration of bacterial cells in potato tissue preparations ranged from >500 cells/microscope field to 1 cell per preparation. Symptomless tubers containing ring rot bacteria planted in field plots yielded plants with ring rot symptoms, plants with latent ring rot infections, or plants with no detectable levels of ring rot bacteria. Tubers with the greatest number of bacteria were most likely to develop plants expressing ring rot symptoms, but even some seed tubers with a low number of bacteria developed into plants with symptoms. Some seed tubers with high levels of ring rot bacteria produced plants with only low numbers ofC. sepedonicum.

Key word

Corynebacterium sepedonicum 


Se detectóCorynebacterium sepedonicum en tallos y tubérculos de papa que no mostraban sÍntomas de la enfermedad, mediante inmunofluorescencia que utilizaba anticuerpos monoclonales específicos para el patógeno de la pudrición anular. La concentración de células bacterianas en las preparaciones de tejidos de papa varió de >500 células/campo del microscopio a 1 célula por preparación. Los tubérculos sin sÍntomas, portando la bacteria de la pudrición anular, y sembrados en parcelas en el campo, desarrollaron plantas con síntomas de pudrición anular, plantas con infecciones latentes, o plantas sin niveles détectables de la bacteria. Los tubérculos con el mayor número de bacterias fueron los más propensos a desarrollar plantas mostrando sÍntomas de pudrición anular, pero aún así, algunos tubérculos-semillas con bajo número de bacterias produjeron plantas con síntomas. Algunos tubérculos-semillas con altos niveles del patógeno produjeron plantas con solo ún bajo contenido deC. sepedonicum.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Bishop, A.L. and S.A. Slack. 1982. Effect of temperature on development of ring rot in potato. Phytopathology 72:1382.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonde, R. 1939. Bacterial wilt and soft rot of potato in Maine. Maine Agrie Exp Stn Bull 396:675–694.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burkholder, W.H. 1942. Diagnosis of the bacterial ring rot of the potato. Am Potato J 19:208–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Boer, S.H. 1984. Enumeration of two competingErwinia carotovora populations in potato tubers by a membrane filter-immunofluorescence procedure. J Appl Bacteriol 57:517–522.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    De Boer, S.H. and A. Wieczorek. 1984. Production of monoclonal antibodies toCorynebacterium sepedonicum. Phytopathology 74:1431–1434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    De Boer, S.H. and R.J. Copeman. 1980. Bacterial ring rot testing with the indirect fluorescent antibody staining procedure. Am Potato J 57:457–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dinesen, I. 1984. The extraction and diagnosis ofCorynebacterium sepedonicum from diseased potato tubers. EPPO Bull 14:147–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Duncan, J., H. Genereux, G.R. Couture. 1958. Indice de transmission de la fletrissure bacterienne par le doryphore. Que Soc Prot Plants Rep 40:88–90.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dykstra, T.P. 1941. Results of experiments in control of bacterial ring rot of potatoes in 1940. Am Potato J 18:27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dykstra, T.P. 1942. Compilation of results in control of potato ring rot in 1941. Am Potato J 19:175–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johnson, G.D., G.M. de C. Nogueira Araujo. 1981. A simple method of reducing the fading of immunofluorescence during microscopy. J Immunol Methods 43:349–350.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Larson, R.H. and J.C. Walker. 1941. Temperatures affect development of ring rot. Wisconsin Agrie Stn Bull 451:62–63.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lelliott, R.A. and P.W. Sellar. 1976. The detection of latent ring rot (Corynebacterium sepedonicum [Spieck. & Kotth.] Skapt. et Burkh.) in potato stocks. EPPO Bull 6:101–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    List, G.M.. and W.A. Kreutzer. 1942. Transmission of the causal agent of the ring-rot disease of potatoes by insects. J Econ Entomol 35:455–456.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Logsdon, C.E. 1967. Effect of soil temperature on potato ring rot. Am Potato J 44:281–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Logsdon, C.E., H.W. Poulsen, J.J. Adams, J.W. Scannell, C.W. Frutcheyet al. 1957. How can we interpret the zero tolerance for bacterial ring rot in certified seed potatoes. Am Potato J 34:142–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McGuire, R.G. and A. Kelman. 1984. Reduced severity of Erwinia soft rot in potato tubers with increased calcium content. Phytopathology 74:1250–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Miller, H.J. 1984. A method for the detection of latent ringrot in potatoes by immunofluorescence microscopy. Potato Res 27:33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nelson, G.A. 1982.Corynebacterium sepedonicum in potato: effect of inoculum concentration on ring rot symptoms and latent infection. Can J Plant Pathol 4:129–133.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nelson, G.A.. and G.C. Kozub. 1983. Effect of total light energy on symptoms and growth of ring rot-infected Red Pontiac potato plants. Am Potato J 60:461–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Olsson, K. 1976. Experience of ring rot caused byCorynebacterium sepedonicum (Spieck. et Kotth.) Skapt. et Burkh. in Sweden. Particularly detection of the disease in its latent form. EPPO Bull 6:209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Racicot, H.N., D.B.O. Savile and I.L. Connors. 1938. Bacterial wilt and rot of potatoes—some suggestions for its detection, verification, and control. Am Potato J 15:312–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Raeder, J.M. 1949. Ring rot of potatoes. Am Potato J 26:126–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Samson, R. and F. Poutier. 1979. Comparaison de trois methodes d’identification deCorynebacterium sepedonicum dans les tuberles de pomme de terre. Potato Res 22:133–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shepard, J.F. and L.E. Claflin. 1975. Critical analyses of the principles of seed potato certification. Annu Rev Phytopathol 13:271–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Slack, S.A., A. Kelman and J.B. Perry. 1979. Comparison of three sérodiagnostic assays for detection ofCorynebacterium sepedonicum. Phytopathology 69:186–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Slack, S.A., H.A. Sanford and F.E. Manzer. 1979. The latex agglutination test as a rapid serological assay forCorynebacterium sepedonicum. Am Potato J 56:441–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zeller, W. and Y. Xie. 1985. Studies on the diagnosis of bacterial ring rot of potatoes. I. Pathogenicity test on eggplants. Phytopathol Z 112:198–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. H. De Boer
  • M. E. McNaughton
    • 1
  1. 1.Agriculture Canada, Research StationVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations