| Literature DB >> 35953055 |
Jeong Ho Choi1, Jong-Yea Kim2, Duck Hwan Park1,3.
Abstract
Erwinia amylovora and E. pyrifoliae are the causative agents of destructive diseases in both apple and pear trees viz. fire blight and black shoot blight, respectively. Since the introduction of fire blight in Korea in 2015, the occurrence of both pathogens has been independently reported. The co-incidence of these diseases is highly probable given the co-existence of their pathogenic bacteria in the same trees or orchards in a city/ district. Hence, this study evaluated whether both diseases occurred in neighboring orchards and whether they occurred together in a single orchard. The competition and virulence of the two pathogens was compared using growth rates in vitro and in planta. Importantly, E amylovora showed significantly higher colony numbers than E. pyrifoliae when they were co-cultured in liquid media and co-inoculated into immature apple fruits and seedlings. In a comparison of the usage of major carbon sources, which are abundant in immature apple fruits and seedlings, E. amylovora also showed better growth rates than E. pyrifoliae. In virulence assays, including motility and a hypersensitive response (HR), E. amylovora demonstrated a larger diameter of travel from the inoculation site than E. pyrifoliae in both swarming and swimming motilities. E. amylovora elicited a HR in tobacco leaves when diluted from 1:1 to 1:16 but E. pyrifoliae does not elicit a HR when diluted at 1:16. Therefore, E. amylovora was concluded to have a greater competitive fitness than E. pyrifoliae.Entities:
Keywords: apple; black shoot blight; competition; fire blight; pear
Year: 2022 PMID: 35953055 PMCID: PMC9372096 DOI: 10.5423/PPJ.OA.04.2022.0056
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Pathol J ISSN: 1598-2254 Impact factor: 2.321
Cities/districts in Korea with orchards in which fire blight and black shoot blight were detected in apple or pear trees from 2016 to 2021
| Year | Province | Cities/districts | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Fire blight | Black shoot blight | Both | ||
| 2016 | Gyeonggi-do | Anseong | Pocheon | - |
| Chungcheongnam-do | Cheonan | - | - | |
| Gangwon-do | - | Chuncheon, Hongcheon, Hoengseong | - | |
| 2017 | Gyeonggi-do | Anseong | Gwangju | - |
| Chungcheongnam-do | Cheonan | - | - | |
| Gangwon-do | - | Chuncheon, Cheorwon, Hongcheon, Hoengseong | - | |
| 2018 | Gyeonggi-do | Anseong | - | - |
| Chungcheongnam-do | Cheonan | - | - | |
| Chungcheongbuk-do | Chungju, Jecheon | - | - | |
| Gangwon-do | Wonju, Pyeongchang | Hoengseong | - | |
| 2019 | Gyeonggi-do | Anseong, Icheon, Paju, Yeoncheon, Yongin | - | - |
| Chungcheongnam-do | Cheonan | - | - | |
| Chungcheongbuk-do | Chungju, Eumseong, Jecheon | - | - | |
| Gangwon-do | Wonju | Chuncheon, Hongcheon, Yanggu | - | |
| 2020 | Gyeonggi-do | Anseong, Gwangju, Icheon, Paju, Pyeongtaek, Yangju, Yeoncheon | Anseong, Pocheon, Yangpyeong, Yeoncheon | Anseong, Yeoncheon |
| Chungcheongnam-do | Asan, Cheonan | - | - | |
| Chungcheongbuk-do | Chungju, Eumseong, Jecheon, Jincheon | Chungju, Eumseong | Chungju, Eumseong | |
| Gangwon-do | Pyeongchang | Chuncheon, Cheorwon, Goseong, Hongcheon, Hoengseong, Hwacheon, Inje, Pyeongchang, Yanggu | Pyeongchang | |
| Gyeongsangbuk-do | Mungyeong, Yeongju | - | ||
| Jeollabuk-do | Iksan | - | - | |
| 2021 | Gyeonggi-do | Anseong, Icheon, Namyangju, Paju, Pyeongtaek, Yeoju, Yongin | Gwangju, Pocheon, Yangpyeong | - |
| Chungcheongnam-do | Asan, Cheonan, Dangjin, Yesan | - | - | |
| Chungcheongbuk-do | Chungju, Danyang, Eumseong, Goesan, Jecheon, Jincheon | - | - | |
| Gangwon-do | Pyeongchang, Wonju, Yeongwol | Chuncheon, Wonju | Wonju | |
| Gyeongsangbuk-do | Andong, Yeongju | Yeongju | Yeongju | |
Fig. 1Distribution of fire blight and black shoot blight among cities and districts in Korea (2016–2021). Colored cities/districts imply accumulated production of diseases in each year. Red, gray, and yellow shading indicate cities/districts where fire blight, black shoot blight, or both diseases were reported, respectively.
Fig. 2Effects of strain and co-culture on the growth rates of Erwinia amylovora TS3128 and E. pyrifoliae Ep1 in mannitol glutamate yeast extract broth. (A) Growth rates of separately cultured wild type strains (Ea-TS3128 and Ep-1/96) and antibiotic-resistant strains (Ea-KmR and Ep-TcR). (B) Growth rates of antibiotic-resistant strains when separately cultured (Ea-KmR and Ep-TcR) or co-cultured (C_Ea-KmR and C_Ep-TcR). Growth rates of Ea-KmR and Ep-TcR differed significantly at every time point (P < 0.005, Duncan’s least significant difference test). Values and error bars represent mean ± standard deviation (n = 2).
Fig. 3In planta growth rates of antibiotic-resistant Erwinia amylovora TS3128 (Ea) and E. pyrifoliae Ep1 (Ep) in planta conditions. (A) Growth rates of antibiotic-resistant strains when separately inoculated (Ea-KmR and Ep-TcR) or co-inoculated (C_Ea-KmR and C_Ep-TcR) into immature apple fruits (Malus demestica cv. Fuji). (B, C) Density of antibiotic-resistant strains after 10 days when separately inoculated (Ea-KmR and Ep-TcR) or co-inoculated (C_Ea-KmR and C_Ep-TcR) onto apple seedlings (M9 and M26 rootstock). Density of co-inoculated Ep-TcR (C-Ep-TcR) were consistently lower than those of Ea-KmR (C_E-KmR) on both immature fruits (P < 0.005) and seedlings (P < 0.0001, Duncan’s least significant difference test). Values and error bars represent mean ± standard deviation (n = 2).
Differences in metabolic activities in Erwinia amylovora TS3128 and E. pyrifoliae Ep1 in BIOLOG GN2 MicroPlate
| Resource | ||
|---|---|---|
| D-Cellobiose | Δ[ | − |
| Gentiobiose | + | − |
| D-Salicin | Δ | − |
| L-Histidine | − | + |
| L-Serine | − | + |
| Sodium butyrate | Δ | − |
+ and Δ indicate positive and variable responses, respectively, due to color changes to violet and pale violet after 24 h incubation at 28°C; − indicates a negative response (no color change).
Quantities of sucrose, glucose, and fructose in immature apple fruits (Malus demestica cv. Fuji) and seedlings (M9 and M26 rootstock) on a fresh-weight basis
| Sample | Type of sugar | Quantity (mg/g) |
|---|---|---|
| Immature fruit | Sucrose | 5.28 ± 0.19 |
| Glucose | 6.94 ± 0.46 | |
| Fructose[ | 8.91 ± 0.67 | |
| Seedling | ||
| M9 | Sucrose | 8.32 ± 0.08 |
| Glucose[ | 26.28 ± 1.14 | |
| Fructose | 5.10 ± 0.58 | |
| M26 | Sucrose | 5.84 ± 0.41 |
| Glucose[ | 17.53 ± 0.38 | |
| Fructose | 6.44 ± 0.37 | |
The most abundant sugar in immature apple fruits and seedlings.
Fig. 4Utilization of sole carbon sources in minimal liquid media by Erwinia amylovora TS3128 (Ea) and E. pyrifoliae Ep1 (Ep). Media was supplemented with each sugar (A, fructose; B, glucose; C, sucrose) at 0.1%, 0.5%, 1.0%, 1.5%, and 2%. The O.D. values of TS3128 and Ep1 differed significantly at 72 h post inoculation (P < 0.005, Duncan’s least significant difference test). Values and error bars represent mean ± standard deviation (n = 2).
Fig. 5Motilities of Erwinia amylovora TS3128 (Ea) and E. pyrifoliae Ep1 (Ep). (A) Swarming motility comparison. (B) Swimming motility comparison. Values and error bars indicate are the mean ± standard deviation (n = 2) distances from plates with single strains. The diameters of TS3128 and Ep1 differed significantly (P < 0.0001, Duncan’s least significant difference test). Center plates shown no antagonism between two pathogens.
Fig. 6Hypersensitive response of tobacco plants (Nicotiana tabacum cv. Samsun) to diluted suspensions of Erwinia amylovora TS3128 and E. pyrifoliae Ep1. Images illustrate the response of tobacco leasves to 1:2, 1:4, 1:8, and 1:16 dilution of O.D.600 nm = 0.1 bacterial suspensions after 12 h infiltration.