ORIGINAL ARTICLE
In vitro evaluation of potato genotypes for resistance against bacterial soft rot (Pectobacterium carotovorum) – a new tool for studying disease resistance
1
Department of Plant Pathology, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, P.O. Box 1477893855, Tehran, Iran
2
Department of Genetics and National Plant Gene-Bank, Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization, Shahid Fahmideh Blvd., P.O. Box 4119, Karaj 31585, Iran
3
Seed and Plant Certifi cation Research Institute, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization, Nabovvat Blvd, P.O. Box 31535-1516, Karaj, Iran
Submission date: 2016-04-04
Acceptance date: 2017-01-23
Corresponding author
Javad Mozafari
Department of Genetics and National Plant Gene-Bank, Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization, Shahid Fahmideh Blvd., P.O. Box 4119, Karaj 31585, Iran
Department of Genetics and National Plant Gene-Bank, Seed and Plant Improvement Institute, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization, Shahid Fahmideh Blvd., P.O. Box 4119, Karaj 31585, Iran
Journal of Plant Protection Research 2017;57(1):1-8
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
In vitro screening techniques were used to evaluate 46 genotypes of Iranian potato collection for resistance to bacterial soft rot caused by Pectobacterium carotovorum subsp. carotovorum (Pcc). One month old in vitro rooted potato plantlets were inoculated by two inoculation techniques under in vitro conditions: 1) sterile toothpicks dipped into bacterial suspension and pressed into the crown of plantlets and 2) the freshly cut crown of plantlets were dipped into bacterial suspension of 108 cfu ∙ ml–1 for 10 min. Typical soft rot disease symptoms, including the percentage of wilted leaves were recorded on inoculated plantlets 3, 6, 9, 12 and 15 days post-inoculation. Th e potato genotypes which were examined responded differently to Pcc and varying levels of resistance were observed. Potato genotype AG showed the highest level of resistance. Results obtained from in vitro screening were then verified by classical tuber slice assay. Th e verifications were conducted using five representative cultivars: Milva, Ramus, Picaso, Marfona and Agria which responded similarly to both in vitro and classical evaluation systems. Similar results obtained from these tests indicated that the in vitro screening technique developed in this study could provide a simple and rapid whole plant assay in selecting resistant potato genotypes against bacterial soft rot.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist.
REFERENCES (19)
1.
Allefs J.W., van Dooijeweert E.R., de Jong J., Prummel J., Hoogendoorn J. 1995. Factors affecting potato soft -rot resistance to pectolytic Erwinia species in a tuber-slice assay. Journal of Phytopathology 143 (11–12): 705–711.
2.
Austin S.E., Lojkowska M.K., Ehlenfeldt A., Kelman J.P., Helgeson J.P. 1988. Fertile interspecific somatic hybrids of Solanum: a novel source of resistance to Erwinia soft rot. Phytopathology 78: 1216–1220.
3.
Avrova A.O., Hyman L.H., Toth R.L., Toth I.K. 2002. Application of amplified fragment length polymorphism fingerprinting for taxonomy and identification of the soft rot bacteria Erwinia carotovora and Erwinia chrysanthemi. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 68 (4): 1499–1508.
4.
Azadmanesh S., Mozafari J., Hasanzadeh H., Moslemkhani C. 2015. In vitro evaluation of resistant of potato cultivars against black leg disease (Pectobacterium atrosepticum). Biological Forum 7 (2): 1087–1094.
5.
Baghaee-Ravari S., Rahimian H., Shams-Bakhsh M., Lopez-Solanilla E., Antúnez-Lamas E., Rodríguez-Palenzuela P. 2011. Characterization of Pectobacterium species from Iran using biochemical and molecular methods. European Journal of Plant Pathology 129 (3): 413–425.
6.
Bagheri M., Zafari D. 2005. Evaluation and identifi cation of potato varieties to black leg (soft rot) disease. Agricultural Research 5 (2): 17–26.
7.
Czajkowski R., Perombelon M.C.M., van Veen J.A., van der Wolf J.M. 2011. Control of blackleg and tuber soft rot of potato caused by Pectobacterium and Dickeya species: a review. Plant Pathology 60 (6): 999–1013. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-3059.2011.02470.x.
8.
Gallois A.R., Samson E., Ageron E., Grimont P.A.D. 1992. Erwinia carotovora subsp. odorifera subsp. nov., associated with odorous soft rot of chicory (Cichorium intybus L.). International Journal of Systematics and Bacteriology 42 (4): 582–588.
9.
Goto M., Matsumoto K. 1987. Erwinia carotovora subsp. wasabiae subsp. nov. isolated from diseased rhizomes and fibrous roots of Japanese horseradish (Eutrema wasabi Maxim.). International Journal of Systematic and Bacteriology 37 (2): 130–135.
10.
Hauben L., Moore E.R.B., Vauterin L., Steenackers M., Mergaert J., Verdonck L., Swings J. 1998. Phylogenetic position of phytopathogens within the nterobacteriaceae. Systematic and Applied Microbiology 21 (3): 384–397.
11.
Jellis G.J. 1992. Multiple resistance to diseases and pests in potatoes. Euphytica 63 (1): 51–58.
12.
Kang H.W., Kwon S.W., Go S.J. 2003. PCR-based specific and sensitive detection of Pectobacterium carotovorum subsp. carotovorum by primers generated from a URP-PCR fi ngerprinting-derived polymorphic band. Plant Pathology 52 (2): 127–133.
13.
Mahuku G.S. 2004. A simple extraction method suitable for PCR-based analysis of plant, fungal, and bacterial DNA. Plant Molecular Biology Reports 22 (1): 71–81.
14.
Murashige T., Skoog F. 1962. A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiologia Plantarum 15: 473–497.
15.
Pitman A.R., Harrow S.A., Visnovsky S.B. 2010. Genetic characterisation of Pectobacterium wasabiae causing soft rot disease of potato in New Zealand. European Journal of Plant Pathology 126 (3): 423–435.
16.
Samson R., Legendre J.B., Christen R., Fischer-Le Saux M., Achouak W., Gardan L. 2005. Transfer of Pectobacterium chrysanthemi (Burkholder et al. 1953) Brenner et al. 1973 and Brenneria paradisiaca to the genus Dickeya gen. nov. as Dickeya chrysanthemi comb. nov. and Dickeya paradisiaca comb. nov. and delineation of four novel species, Dickeya dadantii sp. nov., Dickeya dianthicola sp. nov., Dickeya dieffenbachiae sp. nov. and Dickeya zeae sp. nov. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology 55 (4): 1415-1427.
17.
Th angavel T., Tegg R.S., Wilson C.R. 2014. Resistance to multiple tuber diseases expressed in somaclonal variants of the potato cultivar Russet Burbank. The Scientific World Journal, Article ID 417697, 8 pp., http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014....
18.
Vreugdenhil D., Bradshaw J., Gebhardt Ch., Govers F., Mackerron D.K.L., Taylor M.A., Ross H.A. 2011. Potato Biology and Biotechnology. Advances and Perspectives. Elsevier Ltd., Oxford, UK, 823 pp.
19.
Young J., Saddler M.G.S., Takikawa Y., De Boer S.H., Vauterin L., Gardan L., Gvozdyak R.I., Stead D. 1996. Names of plant pathogenic bacteria, 1864–1995. Review of Plant Pathology 75 (9): 721–863.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 1899-007X |
| ISSN: | 1427-4345 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
