This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
allARialifiCYPATA)gft ° f T r RtfL Biolog 11N1B1 Ch/ W--ftlu'a Alitttik,J=JR 16S rDNA try4-AL-yAnttiLRILiTlirit'f}tfi M*P,VrZAL94":_i5
Bacillus pumiltts AMPITIN I E./2AM 5[11s1EIM'ItWM ° B. pumilus CVP IAA4.S±tfhli.AM 4HAA"-K=fkRITARIAliEj7 61,11g 10 AMI B. pumilus -ffiti"471f[1$1.1E/1\ MUMMA
MITA --igtttitf.: ZAILIM O'IttVA'fLAA Alia _ETE4.11, PI
tiaN 411:16'1.',V4102fAl$117;&WilikkRY.AfthMffil ° itLf.tftWW2C' Bacillus pumilus LU
(Jd 3 itIVON Bacillus pumilus ; 4Fig. 1. Symptoms of bacterial leaf spot of yam in Taiwan. 1, Early symptoms of yam leaf. 2, Field symptom showed dark le-sions and necrosis of yam leaf. 3, Leaf symptoms were shown one week and 4, two weeks after inoculation.
ilAINAltAfliA 217
4
Bacillus pumilus 2..VA-AXTPAMA, (TEM) WW--, 1' A yam3 Ii1n2.1fflitT* ; 2' Atfi-A 5 ,/&&IZP[i0199tf`1+ (iliffiffitri) ; 3 ' ' 4 'Fig. 2. TEM micrographs of Bacillus pumilus isolated from yam in Taiwan. 1. Peritrichous flagella; 2. Oval shape of en-dospore (arrow); 3. formation of terminal endospore; and 4. formation of subterminal endospore.
--0MWM1111MftXMAMIRIILMJATable 1. Physiological and biochemical characteristics of Bacillus pumilus isolated from yam
CharacteristicBacillus pumilus Strains
from yam'Bacillus pumilus2
Curtobacterium flaccumfacienspv. dioscorea3
KOH test G (+)4 G ( +) G ( +)Spore forming + +0/F test 0/F 0/F 0/FOxidase - - -Growth at 55°C + + ND
111E-. PCR -TV SE2-10-f/ SE2-10-r 91fff M 100 by DNA marker ; 1 negativecontrol ; 2 Bacillus cereus/thuringiensis A (110AWM/3/A) ; 3 B. amyloliquefaciens B (RNOIL4-TV-Vi) ;4-23 yam 1-20 (LL14-aiiiffitt %An B. pumilus) °Fig. 3. Identification of Bacillus pumilus by using PCR with primer pair SE2-10-f/ SE2-10-r. Lane M, 100 by DNA marker;lane 1, negative control, lane 2, Bacillus cereus/thuringiensis A, lane 3, B. amyloliquefaciens B, lanes 4-23, B. pumilusstrains yam1-20 isolated from yam.
X=-. 11+i ITI Bacillus pumilusTable 3. The fatty acid components of yam-isolated Bacillus pumilus strains
Fatty acid yam3 yam7 yamll yam15 yam17 Reference'
13:0 iso 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.24 0.43 0.92
12:0 iso 30H 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.10 ND'14:0 iso 1.31 1.41 1.30 1.14 1.75 ND
14:0 0.48 0.29 0.44 0.30 0.66 0.87
15:0 iso 50.82 50.7 50.68 52.98 53.01 61.15
15:0 anteiso 23.35 21.71 24.91 20.43 26.38 16.95
16:1 w7c alcohol 0.36 0.95 0.38 0.93 0.51 0.90
16:0 iso 4.13 4.21 4.24 3.58 3.39 2.47
16:0 anteiso 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.08 0.04 ND
16:1 wile 0.30 0.55 0.32 0.67 0.54 ND
16:0 1.94 1.42 1.87 1.40 1.66 2.30
15:0 iso 30H 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.15 0.13 ND
15:020H 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.08 ND
17:1 iso wl0c 0.85 2.53 1.00 2.84 0.96 NDSum In Feature 4(17:1 anteiso B/iso 1)
0.31 0.72 0.31 0.72 0.34 ND
17:0 iso 7.71 8.93 8.27 8.84 5.66 6.04
17:0 anteiso 5.29 5.04 5.20 4.89 3.66 2.56
16:0 iso 30H 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 ND
18:1 w9c 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.08 ND
Sim Index 0.735 0.663 0.729 0.737 0.745 ND
Result from date base B. pumilus B. pumilus B. pumilus B. pumilus B. pumilus B. pumilus
I Data are combined by referring to Gala!, et al., 2006 (13)2 ND: not detectable.
1. Adaskaveg, J. E. and Hine, R. B. 1985. Coppertolerance and zinc sensitivity of Mexican strains ofXanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria, causal agentof bacterial spot of pepper. Plant Dis. 69: 993-996.
2. Agriculture and Food Agency. 2002. Crop yields ofthe order query-Yam. Retrieved Jan. 4, 2010, fromAgricultural report resources network on the worldwide web: http://agr.afa.gov.tw/afa/afa_frame.jsp (inChinese)
3. Amusa, N. A., Adegbite, A. A., Muhammed, S., andBaiyewu, R. A. 2003. Yam diseases and its managementin Nigeria. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 12: 497-502.
4. Atu, U. G., Odurukwe, S. 0., and Ogbuji, R. 0. 1983.Root-knot nematode damage to Dioscorea rotundata.Plant Dis. 67: 814-815.
5. Bell, A. A. 2008. Bacillus seed and boll rot of cotton:Symptoms and transmission by Hemiptera. Phytopa-thology 98: S21. (Abstr.)
6. Benhamou, N., Kloepper, J. W., Quadt-Hallman, A.,and Tuzun, S. 1996. Induction of defense-related ultra-structural modifications in pea root tissues inoculatedwith endophytic bacteria. Plant Physiol. 112: 919-929.
7. Cervino, J. M., Littler, M., Littler, D., Poison, S., Gore-au, T. J., Brooks, B., and Smith, G. W. 2005. Identifica-tion of microbes associated with coralline lethal algaldisease and its relationship to glacial ice melt (globalwarming). Phytopathology 95: S120. (Abstr.)
8. Chen, C., Bauske, E. M., Musson, G., Rodriguez-Ka-bana, R., and Kloepper, J. W. 1995. Biological controlof Fusarium wilt on cotton by use of endophytic bacte-ria. Biol. Control 5: 83-91.
9. Chun, W. and Vidaver, A. K. 2001. III Gram-positivebacteria C. Bacillus. Pages 250-259. in: Laboratoryguide for identification of plant pathogenic bacteria. 3rdedition Schaad, N. W., Jones, J. B., and Chun, W. eds.APS, St. Paul, USA. 373 pp.
10. Font, M. I., Bassimba, D. D. M., Cebrian, M. C., Mo-lina, L. M., and Jorda, C. 2009. Junly 1. First report ofBacillus pumilus on Phaseolus vulgaris in Spain. NewDisease Reports 19, 019054. Retrieved November 27,2009, from http://www.bspp.org.uk/publications/new-disease-reports/ndr.php?id=019054
11. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nation.Crops primary equivalent-Yam in 2005. Retrieved Feb.9, 2010, from FAOSTAT on the world wide web: http://faostat.fao.org/site/609/default.aspx#ancor
12. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nation.Crops-Yam in 2008. Retrieved Feb. 9, 2010, fromFAOSTAT on the world wide web: http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/default.aspx#ancor
13. Galal, A. A., El-Bana, A. A., and Janse, J. 2006. Bacil-lus pumilus, a new pathogen on mango plants. Egypt. J.Phytopathol. 34: 17-29.
14. Hearon, S. S., Corbett, M. K., Lawson, R. H., Gillaspie,A. G., Jr., and Waterworth, H. E. 1978. Two Flexous-rod Viruses in Disocorea floribunda: symptoms, iden-tification, and ultrastructure. Phytopathology 68: 1137-1146.
15. Isenegger, D. A., Taylor, P. W. J., Mullins, K.,McGregor, G. R., Barlass, M., and Hutchinson, J. F.2003. Molecular detection of a bacterial contaminantBacillus pumilus in symptomless potato plant tissuecultures. Plant Cell Rep. 21: 814-820.
16. Kloepper, J. W., Rodriguez-Ubana, R., Zehnder, G. W.,Murphy, J. F., Sikora, E., and Fernandez, C. 1999. Plantroot-bacterial interactions in biological control of soil-borne diseases and potential extension to systemic andfoliar diseases. Austral. Plant Pathol. 28: 21-26.
17. Kloepper, J. W., Ryu, C.-M., and Zhang, S. 2004.Induced systemic resistance and promotion of plantgrowth by Bacillus spp. Phytopathology 94: 1259-1266.
18. Lebas, B. S. M., Ochoa-Corona, F. M., Elliott, D. R.,Tang, Z., and Alexander, B. J. R. 2005. Partial Char-acterization of a Carla-Like Virus Infecting Yam (Di-oscorea spp.) from China. Plant Dis. 89: 912. (Abstr.)
19. Lipson, D. A. and Schmidt, S. K. 2004. Seasonalchanges in an alpine soil bacterial community in theColorado Rocky Mountains. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.70: 2867-2879.
20. Liu, S. L. 2005. Yam. (Special Crops). Pages 225-228.in: Taiwan agriculture encyclopedia. vol. 1. HarvestFarm Magazine of non-profit organization, Fang ed.Taipei, R.O.C. 404 pp. (in Chinese)
21. Ni, H. E, Hsu, S. L., and Yang, H. R. 2007. Evaluationof different method for inoculation for Pratylenchuscoffeae on yam. J. Taiwan Agric. Res. 56: 99-106. (inChinese)
22. Park, K. S. and Kloepper, J. W. 2000. Activation of
PR-la promoter by rhizobacteria that induce systemicresistance in tobacco against Pseudomonas syringae pv.tabaci. Biol. Control 18: 2-9.
23. Saleh, 0. I., Hung, P. Y., and Hung, J. S. 1997. Bacilluspumilus, the cause of bacterial blotch of immatureBalady peach in Egypt. J. Phytopathology 145: 447-453.
24. Sangoyomi, T. E. and Ekpo, E. J. A. 2002. First reportof Nattrassia mangiferae as a postharvest fungalpathogen of white yam (Dioscorea rotundata) inNigeria. Plant Dis. 86: 919.
25. Sasser, M. 1990. Identification of bacteria through fattyacid analysis. Pages 199-204. in: Methods in phytobac-teriology. Klement, Z., Rudolph, K., and Sands, D. C.eds. Akadetniai Kiad6. Budapest. 568 pp.
LUCEFLAtiXillf-A 223
26. Schaad, N. W. 2001. Initial identification of commongenera. Pages 1-10. in: Laboratory guide for identifica-tion of plant pathogenic bacteria. 3rd edition Schaad, N.W., Jones, J. B., and Chun, W. eds. APS, St. Paul, USA.373 pp.
27. Wang, G. J. 2006. Identifying pathogen of bacterial leafspot disease in the yam. Henan Agricultural University,master's thesis. 55 pp. (in Chinese)
28. Yang, T. C. 2005. Study of incidences and control ofmajor pests on yam, Dioscorea spp. in Hualien area.Bull. Hualien DAIS. 23: 15-29. (in Chinese)
224 tOMMT,V*Tli 19 'ffi 3 Vi 2010
AbstractHseu, S. H.', Lai, W. C.' , Hung, Y. H.2, and Deng, T. C.3' 4. 2010. Yam bacterial leaf spot caused by
Bacillus pumilus. Plant Pathol. Bull. 19: 213-224. (' Department of Plant Protection, Fengshan Tropical
Horticultural Experiment Branch, Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute. Wenshan Rd. Fengshan,
Kaohsiung, 83052, Taiwan, R.O.C.; 2 Department of Biotechnology, Asia University, Wufeng, Taiwan;
3Plant Pathology Division, Agricultural Research Institute, Council of Agriculture, Wufeng, Taichung,