{"title":"Corrigendum PM 7/024 (5) Xylella fastidiosa","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/epp.13060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>\n <b>Background information</b>\n </p><p>In the EPPO diagnostic protocol PM 7/024 (5) <i>Xylella fastidiosa</i> (EPPO, <span>2023</span>), the test of Hodgetts et al. (2021) is recommended under Section 3.4 on Screening test in Section 3.4.2.2 and as an identification and subspecies determination test in Section 4. It is described in full in Appendix 11.</p><p>It should be noted that during a Proficiency Test (PT) organized by the European Union Reference Laboratory for bacteriology (EURL-BAC) on <i>Xylella fastidiosa</i> some issues concerning analytical sensitivity and analytical specificity have been encountered with this test (Vreeburg et al., <span>2024a</span>). A lower analytical sensitivity for subsp. <i>pauca</i> ST74 has been observed compared to the other subspecies. Therefore, using Hodgetts et al. (2021) as a single test for screening is not recommended.</p><p>In terms of assignment of subspecies in Section 4.2, the results of the PT showed that for Hodgetts et al. (2021) some of the subsp. <i>pauca</i> strains from sequence type 74 (ST74) can cross react with the test for subsp. <i>fastidiosa</i> (Vreeburg et al., <span>2024a</span>). It is therefore recommended to laboratories using this test to include ST74 strains in the set of strains selected for verification of this test.</p><p>In Section 4.2 Molecular tests for the identification of <i>X. fastidiosa</i> and assignment of <i>X. fastidiosa</i> subspecies it is stated: ‘In other cases, subspecies assignment may be performed by subspecies-specific molecular tests (Pooler & Hartung, 1995, see Appendix 18; Hernandez-Martinez et al., 2006, see Appendices 19 and 20) or Sanger sequencing.’</p><p>It should be noted that during the PT organized by the EURL-BAC on <i>Xylella fastidiosa</i> subspecies determination, several participants used the conventional PCR tests of Hernandez-Martinez et al. (2006). These participants found that these conventional PCR tests could not distinguish between subsp. <i>sandyi</i> and subsp. <i>morus</i>, since both subspecies produced a PCR product of 638 bp (Vreeburg et al., <span>2024b</span>).</p><p>It is therefore recommended to laboratories performing Hernandez-Martinez et al. (2006), that if a band of 638 bp is obtained, then additional tests (Appendices 10, 11, 16 or 17) should be performed to distinguish between subsp. <i>sandyi</i> and subsp. <i>morus</i>.</p><p>\n <b>List of changes:</b>\n </p><p><b>Using Hodgetts et al. (2021) as a single test for screening on plant samples is not recommended</b>.</p><p>Section 4 of Appendix 11 for exclusivity is modified as follows (new text in bold):</p><p>[ ]: 100%.</p><p><b>With Hodgetts et al. (2021) some of the subsp. <i>pauca</i> strains from sequence type 74 (ST74) can cross react with the test for subsp. <i>fastidiosa</i> (Vreeburg et al</b>., <span><b>2024a</b></span><b>). It is therefore recommended to laboratories using this test to include ST74 strains in the set of strains selected for this test</b>.</p><p>Section 4 of Appendix 19 and 20 for Analytical specificity is modified as follows (new text in bold):</p><p>[ ]</p><p><b>Hernandez-Martinez et al. (2006) cannot distinguish between subsp. <i>sandyi</i> and subsp. <i>morus</i>, since both subspecies produce a PCR product of 638 bp (Vreeburg et al</b>., <span><b>2024b</b></span><b>)</b>.</p><p><b>It is therefore recommended to laboratories performing Hernandez-Martinez et al. (2006), that if a band of 638 bp is obtained, then additional tests (Appendices 10, 11, 16 or 17) should be performed to distinguish between subsp. <i>sandyi</i> and subsp. <i>morus</i></b>.</p>","PeriodicalId":34952,"journal":{"name":"EPPO Bulletin","volume":"54 3","pages":"391-392"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/epp.13060","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EPPO Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/epp.13060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background information
In the EPPO diagnostic protocol PM 7/024 (5) Xylella fastidiosa (EPPO, 2023), the test of Hodgetts et al. (2021) is recommended under Section 3.4 on Screening test in Section 3.4.2.2 and as an identification and subspecies determination test in Section 4. It is described in full in Appendix 11.
It should be noted that during a Proficiency Test (PT) organized by the European Union Reference Laboratory for bacteriology (EURL-BAC) on Xylella fastidiosa some issues concerning analytical sensitivity and analytical specificity have been encountered with this test (Vreeburg et al., 2024a). A lower analytical sensitivity for subsp. pauca ST74 has been observed compared to the other subspecies. Therefore, using Hodgetts et al. (2021) as a single test for screening is not recommended.
In terms of assignment of subspecies in Section 4.2, the results of the PT showed that for Hodgetts et al. (2021) some of the subsp. pauca strains from sequence type 74 (ST74) can cross react with the test for subsp. fastidiosa (Vreeburg et al., 2024a). It is therefore recommended to laboratories using this test to include ST74 strains in the set of strains selected for verification of this test.
In Section 4.2 Molecular tests for the identification of X. fastidiosa and assignment of X. fastidiosa subspecies it is stated: ‘In other cases, subspecies assignment may be performed by subspecies-specific molecular tests (Pooler & Hartung, 1995, see Appendix 18; Hernandez-Martinez et al., 2006, see Appendices 19 and 20) or Sanger sequencing.’
It should be noted that during the PT organized by the EURL-BAC on Xylella fastidiosa subspecies determination, several participants used the conventional PCR tests of Hernandez-Martinez et al. (2006). These participants found that these conventional PCR tests could not distinguish between subsp. sandyi and subsp. morus, since both subspecies produced a PCR product of 638 bp (Vreeburg et al., 2024b).
It is therefore recommended to laboratories performing Hernandez-Martinez et al. (2006), that if a band of 638 bp is obtained, then additional tests (Appendices 10, 11, 16 or 17) should be performed to distinguish between subsp. sandyi and subsp. morus.
List of changes:
Using Hodgetts et al. (2021) as a single test for screening on plant samples is not recommended.
Section 4 of Appendix 11 for exclusivity is modified as follows (new text in bold):
[ ]: 100%.
With Hodgetts et al. (2021) some of the subsp. pauca strains from sequence type 74 (ST74) can cross react with the test for subsp. fastidiosa (Vreeburg et al., 2024a). It is therefore recommended to laboratories using this test to include ST74 strains in the set of strains selected for this test.
Section 4 of Appendix 19 and 20 for Analytical specificity is modified as follows (new text in bold):
[ ]
Hernandez-Martinez et al. (2006) cannot distinguish between subsp. sandyi and subsp. morus, since both subspecies produce a PCR product of 638 bp (Vreeburg et al., 2024b).
It is therefore recommended to laboratories performing Hernandez-Martinez et al. (2006), that if a band of 638 bp is obtained, then additional tests (Appendices 10, 11, 16 or 17) should be performed to distinguish between subsp. sandyi and subsp. morus.
在EPPO诊断方案PM 7/024(5)苛养木杆菌(EPPO, 2023)中,Hodgetts et al.(2021)的测试建议在第3.4.2.2节的筛选测试3.4节中进行,并在第4节中作为鉴定和亚种确定测试。在附录11中有详细描述。值得注意的是,在欧盟细菌学参考实验室(EURL-BAC)组织的关于挑剔木杆菌的能力测试(PT)中,该测试遇到了一些有关分析敏感性和分析特异性的问题(Vreeburg等人,2024a)。对亚sp的分析灵敏度较低。与其他亚种相比,我们观察到了pauca ST74。因此,不建议使用Hodgetts et al.(2021)作为筛查的单一测试。在第4.2节的亚种分配方面,PT结果显示Hodgetts et al.(2021)的一些亚种。序列74型(ST74)的pauca菌株能与亚孢子虫试验交叉反应。fastidiosa (freeburg et al., 2024a)。因此,建议使用该测试的实验室将ST74菌株包括在为验证该测试而选择的菌株集中。在第4.2节中,鉴定苛养双歧杆菌的分子测试和苛养双歧杆菌亚种的分配指出:“在其他情况下,亚种分配可以通过亚种特异性分子测试进行(Pooler &;Hartung, 1995,见附录18;Hernandez-Martinez等人,2006,见附录19和20)或Sanger测序。值得注意的是,在EURL-BAC组织的苛养木杆菌亚种鉴定PT中,一些参与者使用了Hernandez-Martinez等人(2006)的传统PCR检测方法。这些参与者发现,这些传统的聚合酶链反应测试不能区分亚种。Sandyi和subsp。这两个亚种都产生了638 bp的PCR产物(Vreeburg et al., 2024b)。因此,建议实验室进行Hernandez-Martinez等人(2006)的检测,如果获得638 bp的条带,则应进行额外的检测(附录10、11、16或17),以区分亚sp。Sandyi和subsp。桑属。变更列表:不建议使用Hodgetts等人(2021)作为筛选植物样本的单一测试。附录11第4节的排他性修改如下(加粗的新文本):[]:100%。与Hodgetts等人(2021)的一些子sp。序列74型(ST74)的pauca菌株能与亚孢子虫试验交叉反应。fastidiosa (freeburg et al., 2024a)。因此,建议使用该测试的实验室在为该测试选择的菌株集中包括ST74菌株。附录19和20的第4节分析特异性修改如下(黑体新文本):[]Hernandez-Martinez et al.(2006)不能区分subsp。Sandyi和subsp。这两个亚种都产生638 bp的PCR产物(Vreeburg et al., 2024b)。因此,建议实验室进行Hernandez-Martinez等人(2006)的检测,如果获得638 bp的条带,则应进行额外的检测(附录10、11、16或17),以区分亚sp。Sandyi和subsp。桑属。
EPPO BulletinAgricultural and Biological Sciences-Horticulture
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
70
期刊介绍:
As the official publication of the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization, the EPPO Bulletin publishes research findings on all aspects of plant protection, but particularly those of immediate concern to government plant protection services. Papers are published in English and French, with summaries also in Russian.