Advertisement

Usefulness of IS1595 as a Molecular Tool for Epidemiological Typing of the Xanthomonas Pathovar mangiferaeindicae, Causal Agent of Mango Bacterial Black Spot

  • O. Pruvost
  • L. Gagnevin
  • V. Glories
  • K. Mete
  • L. Gout
  • A. Couteau

Abstract

Mango bacterial black spot (MBBS) caused by Xanthomonas pv. mangiferaeindicae, (Xm) has a high incidence in several tropical countries (Asia, East Africa). Most commercial cultivars are highly susceptible to MBBS and infections can result in drastic reductions of crop yield, loss of fruit quality and induction of severe defoliation, especially when storms or hurricanes are involved. Lesions develop mainly on leaves, twigs and fruit. Leaf and twig lesions constitute the most important inoculum source. A single leaf lesion contains 106-107 cfu lesion-1 throughout the growing season. Survival in soil is limited and populations surviving in plant debris are of little significance for new grove infections. The pathogen can survive as an epiphyte, although the epidemiological significance of the epiphytic inoculum is presently unknown. Short distance spread in nurseries mainly occurs through rain and irrigation splashing, whereas short or medium distance spread within or among groves mainly occurs through wind-driven rains and grove maintenance operations; long distance spread occurs mainly through plant material exchanges [3, 4]. Information brought by “classical” ecology and epidemiology programs can be efficiently complemented by those obtained from genetic analyses of bacterial strains. The combination of both approaches, often qualified as “molecular epidemiology”, integrate the genetic diversity of the bacterial inoculum, which is no longer regarded as homogenous, but rather as a mixture of interacting subpopulations. In this study, we evaluated the usefulness of an insertion sequence cloned from Xm as a tool for epidemiological typing.

Keywords

Insertion Sequence Tropical Storm Mango Tree Epidemiological Significance Severe Defoliation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Gagnevin L., Leach J.E. and Prnvost O. 1997, Appl. Environ. Microbial 63:24 6–253.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gottwald T.R., Richie S.M. and Campbell C.L. 1992 Plant Dis. 76:213–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Prnvost O., Conteau A., Luisetti J. and Verniere C. 1995 Fruits 50:183–189.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Prnvost O. and Manicom B.Q. 1993. P. 91–95 In Xanthom onas. Swings J.G. and Civerolo E.L. (Eds). Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stanley J. and Saunders N. 1996. J. Med. Microbial 45:236–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. Pruvost
    • 1
  • L. Gagnevin
    • 1
  • V. Glories
    • 1
  • K. Mete
    • 1
  • L. Gout
    • 1
  • A. Couteau
    • 1
  1. 1.Pôle de Protection des PlantesCIRADSaint PierreFrance

Personalised recommendations