| Literature DB >> 35678056 |
Xin Zhong1,2,3, Yang Yang1,2,3, Jing Zhao1,2,3, Binbin Gong1,2,3, Jingrui Li1,2,3, Xiaolei Wu1,2,3, Hongbo Gao1,2,3, Guiyun Lü1,2,3.
Abstract
Fusarium wilt caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. niveum (Fon) is the most serious soil-borne disease in the world and has become the main limiting factor of watermelon production. Reliable and quick detection and quantification of Fon are essential in the early stages of infection for control of watermelon Fusarium wilt. Traditional detection and identification tests are laborious and cannot efficiently quantify Fon isolates. In this work, a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay has been described to accurately identify and quantify Fon in watermelon plants and soil. The FONRT-18 specific primer set which was designed based on identified specific sequence amplified a specific 172 bp band from Fon and no amplification from the other formae speciales of Fusarium oxysporum tested. The detection limits with primers were 1.26 pg/µl genomic DNA of Fon, 0.2 pg/ng total plant DNA in inoculated plant, and 50 conidia/g soil. The PCR assay could also evaluate the relationships between the disease index and Fon DNA quantity in watermelon plants and soil. The assay was further used to estimate the Fon content in soil after disinfection with CaCN2. The real-time PCR method is rapid, accurate and reliable for monitoring and quantification analysis of Fon in watermelon plants and soil. It can be applied to the study of disease diagnosis, plant-pathogen interactions, and effective management.Entities:
Keywords: Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. niveum; plant tissue; quantification; soil; watermelon
Year: 2022 PMID: 35678056 PMCID: PMC9343908 DOI: 10.5423/PPJ.OA.03.2022.0039
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Pathol J ISSN: 1598-2254 Impact factor: 2.321
Fungal species and isolates used to evaluate primer specificity in the real-time PCR assay
| Species/isolate | Original host | Origin | Conventional PCR |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Hebei | + | |
|
| Beijing | + | |
|
| Shandong | + | |
|
| Hebei | + | |
|
| Beijing | + | |
|
| Heilongjiang | + | |
|
| Shandong | + | |
|
| Hebei | + | |
|
| Beijing | + | |
|
| Hebei | + | |
|
| American | + | |
|
| Beijing | − | |
|
| Hebei | − | |
|
| Hebei | − | |
|
| Hebei | − | |
|
| Beijing | − | |
|
| Beijing | − | |
| Beijing | − | ||
|
| Beijing | − | |
|
| Hebei | − | |
|
| Hebei | − | |
|
|
| Hebei | − |
PCR, polymerase chain reaction; +, with target product; −, without target product.
Fig. 1Standard curve analysis of real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay by the FONRT-18 primers. Real-time PCR assay standard curve of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. niveum (Fon). Various concentrations of Fon DNA, ranging from 1.26 pg to 126 ng/μl, were used to develop the standard curve. Each point represents the average of in three biological and technical replicates.
Detection and quantification of Fon DNA from the watermelon plants ‘Zao Jia 8424’ and ‘Xi Nong 8’ in different Fusarium wilt disease index groupings by real-time PCR assay
| Zao Jia 8424 | Xi Nong 8 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
| Disease index | Disease index | |||
| 0 dpi | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 dpi | 0.54 ± 0.11 gh[ | 0 | 0.23 ± 0.03 e | 0 |
| 3 dpi | 1.56 ± 0.13 fg | 0 | 0.41 ± 0.06 d | 0 |
| 5 dpi | 1.87 ± 0.22 fg | 1.77 ± 0.19 f | 0.87 ± 0.07 c | 0 |
| 7 dpi | 4.43 ± 0.16 f | 20.83 ± 2.61 e | 2.06 ± 0.48 a | 0 |
| 9 dpi | 6.17 ± 0.85 e | 51.67 ± 4.26 d | 2.06 ± 0.28 a | 0 |
| 11 dpi | 8.27 ± 0.28 d | 65.71 ± 3.78 c | 1.07 ± 0.07 b | 0 |
| 13 dpi | 13.02 ± 0.22 b | 87.22 ± 3.2 b | 0.56 ± 0.05 d | 0 |
| 15 dpi | 14.16 ± 0.33 a | 96.67 ± 0.96 a | 0.39 ± 0.04 de | 2.67 ± 0.41 c |
| 17 dpi | 10.67 ± 0.12 c | 96.92 ± 1.82 a | 0.42 ± 0.03 d | 5.38 ± 9.09 b |
| 19 dpi | 11.47 ± 1.03 c | 99.09 ± 1.15 a | 0.47 ± 0.08 d | 12.72 ± 1.02 a |
Mean and standard deviation of Fon content obtained from real-time polymerase chain reaction detection of DNA extraction from three biological replicates.
Fon, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. niveum; PCR, polymerase chain reaction; dpi, days post inoculation.
Different lower-case letters in each column indicate significant difference at P < 0.05 by Tukey’s test.
Fig. 2Colony-forming units (cfu) on ‘Zao Jia 8424’ (susceptible to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. niveum [Fon] race 1) and ‘Xi Nong 8’ (resistant to Fon race 1) watermelon inoculated with Fon race 1 by the plate dilution method. Each value is the mean ± standard deviation of five replicates. Different lowercase letters in each column shape indicate significant difference at P < 0.05 by Tukey’s test.
Detection and quantification of Fon DNA in artificially inoculated soil samples in which the watermelon cultivars ‘Zao Jia 8424’ and ‘Xi Nong 8’ were grown
| Fon concentration (cfu/g soil) | Days post inoculation | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||||||
| 0 dpi | 4 dpi | 8 dpi | 12 dpi | 16 dpi | 20 dpi | |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
| Fon content (pg/ng DNA) | DI | Fon content (pg/ng DNA) | DI | Fon content (pg/ng DNA) | DI | Fon content (pg/ng DNA | DI | Fon content (pg/ngDNA) | DI | Fon content (pg/ngDNA) | DI | |
| ZhaoJia 8424 | ||||||||||||
| 5 × 105 | 2.78 ± 0.22 a[ | 0 | 5.67 ± 1.32 a | 0 | 7.87 ± 0.55 a | 0 | 13.8 ± 0.66 a | 32.80 ± 1.12 a | 25.7 ± 0.75 a | 56.1 ± 0.27 a | 16.7 ± 0.21 a | 100.0 ± 0.0 a |
| 5 × 104 | 2.30 ± 0.26 b | 0 | 4.68 ± 0.37 ab | 0 | 6.92 ± 0.56 b | 0 | 12.2 ± 0.42 b | 20.80 ± 2.77 b | 24.4 ± 0.28 a | 48.2 ± 0.72 b | 15.4 ± 0.61 b | 97.3 ± 0.43 b |
| 5 × 103 | 2.18 ± 0.12 b | 0 | 4.56 ± 0.16 ab | 0 | 5.98 ± 0.34 c | 0 | 11.4 ± 0.41 b | 15.20 ± 1.22 c | 19.9 ± 1.42 b | 42.4 ± 0.32 c | 14.2 ± 0.74 c | 82.2 ± 0.12 c |
| 5 × 102 | 1.51 ± 0.11 c | 0 | 4.35 ± 0.16 b | 0 | 5.61 ± 0.07 c | 0 | 10.2 ± 0.74 c | 14.40 ± 1.29 c | 17.1 ± 0.79 c | 33.6 ± 0.85 d | 12.8 ± 0.51 d | 60.5 ± 0.49 d |
| 5 × 101 | 1.36 ± 0.15 c | 0 | 3.14 ± 0.38 c | 0 | 4.57 ± 0.32 d | 0 | 8.7 ± 0.31 d | 12.50 ± 0.14 c | 15.2 ± 0.35 d | 27.2 ± 0.35 e | 10.9 ± 0.49 e | 52.0 ± 0.45 e |
| Xi Nong 8 | ||||||||||||
| 5 × 105 | 1.79 ± 0.08 a | 0 | 3.54 ± 0.12 a | 0 | 5.97 ± 0.08 a | 0 | 7.3 ± 0.09 a | 0 | 6.6 ± 0.11 a | 9.72 ± 0.08 a | 6.09 ± 0.08 a | 13.00 ± 0.59 a |
| 5 × 104 | 1.60 ± 0.04 b | 0 | 2.99 ± 0.11 b | 0 | 5.16 ± 0.11 b | 0 | 6.4 ± 0.08 b | 0 | 6.1 ± 0.04 b | 4.87 ± 0.59 b | 4.33 ± 0.03 b | 8.00 ± 0.45 b |
| 5 × 103 | 1.53 ± 0.02 bc | 0 | 2.75 ± 0.03 c | 0 | 4.59 ± 0.11 c | 0 | 5.9 ± 0.34 c | 0 | 4.9 ± 0.07 c | 0 | 3.08 ± 0.04 c | 5.22 ± 0.46 c |
| 5 × 102 | 1.46 ± 0.03 c | 0 | 2.56 ± 0.07 d | 0 | 4.29 ± 0.10 d | 0 | 5.5 ± 0.13 d | 0 | 4.3 ± 0.04 d | 0 | 2.61 ± 0.07 d | 3.33 ± 0.01 d |
| 5 × 101 | 1.33 ± 0.08 d | 0 | 2.25 ± 0.05 e | 0 | 3.65 ± 0.08 e | 0 | 5.1 ± 0.05 e | 0 | 2.1 ± 0.03 e | 0 | 1.35 ± 0.03 e | 2.16 ± 0.27 e |
Fon, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. niveum; DI, disease index.
Zhao Jia 8424 had no disease symptoms, and the DI was zero from 0–8 dpi, Xi Nong 8 had no disease symptoms from 0–12 dpi; Each value is the mean ± standard deviation of the three biological replicates.
Different lower-case letters in each column indicate significant difference at P < 0.05 by Tukey’s test.
Detection and quantification of Fon in the soil after disinfection with different application rates of CaCN2 in comparison with the PDM
| Different amount of application (mg/cm3) | Days post inoculation | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| 0 dpi | 10 dpi | 20 dpi | ||||
|
|
|
| ||||
| Real-time PCR (pg/ng total DNA) | PDM (cfu/g) | Real-time PCR (pg/ng total DNA) | PDM (cfu/g) | Real-time PCR (pg/ng total DNA) | PDM (cfu/g) | |
| 0 | 10.68 ± 0.136 b[ | 36.33 ± 3.51 a | 14.54 ± 0.256 a | 75.00 ± 4.00 a | 19.73 ± 0.162 a | 145.67 ± 4.00 a |
| 180 | 11.58 ± 0.160 a | 30.67 ± 3.06 b | 7.34 ± 0.076 b | 25.33 ± 1.33 b | 6.55 ± 0.089 b | 21.00 ± 1.00 b |
| 240 | 11.26 ± 0.061 a | 31.33 ± 3.21 b | 6.23 ± 0.067 c | 22.00 ± 0.33 c | 4.21 ± 0.030 c | 11.00 ± 0.67 c |
| 300 | 10.55 ± 0.1732 b | 31.00 ± 6.56 b | 5.98 ± 0.046 c | 19.67 ± 1.00 d | 4.01 ± 0.012 c | 7.67 ± 0.58 d |
Each value is the mean ± standard deviation of five replicates.
Fon, Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. niveum; PDM, plate dilution method; PCR, polymerase chain reaction.
Different lower-case letters in each column indicate significant difference at P < 0.05 by Tukey’s test.