Literature DB >> 30565503

A Response to Gupta et al. (2019) Regarding the MoT3 Wheat Blast Diagnostic Assay.

Jarred Yasuhara-Bell1, Michael L Pieck2, Amy Ruck2, Mark L Farman3, Gary L Peterson2, James P Stack1, Barbara Valent1, Kerry F Pedley2.   

Abstract

This is a response to a recent Letter to the Editor of Phytopathology, in which Gupta et al. (2019) caution against the indiscriminate use of the MoT3 diagnostic assay that distinguishes isolates of Magnaporthe oryzae in the Triticum lineage from those that do not cause aggressive wheat blast. We confirm that the assay does reliably distinguish between wheat and rice isolates from Bangladesh and worldwide, as described in the original paper by Pieck et al. (2017) . We have been unable to reproduce the equally intense amplification of WB12 and WB12-like sequences reported in Figure 1 of the Letter. Other data presented by Gupta et al. (2019) support the specificity of the MoT3 assay. Therefore, cautions beyond those always associated with accurate reproduction of diagnostic assays are unwarranted.

Entities:  

Year:  2019        PMID: 30565503     DOI: 10.1094/PHYTO-10-18-0397-LE

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phytopathology        ISSN: 0031-949X            Impact factor:   4.025


  2 in total

1.  Multiple internal controls enhance reliability for PCR and real time PCR detection of Rathayibacter toxicus.

Authors:  Mohammad Arif; Grethel Y Busot; Rachel Mann; Brendan Rodoni; James P Stack
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-04-16       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 2.  Wheat blast: A review from a genetic and genomic perspective.

Authors:  Md Motaher Hossain
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2022-09-08       Impact factor: 6.064

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.