First Report of Pink Seed of Pea Caused by <i>Erwinia rhapontici</i> in the United States
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In March 2001, the USDA Federal Grain Inspection Service sent for analysis to USDA-ARS, Pullman, WA, 12 discolored seeds of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) from northeastern Montana. Symptoms consisted of pale pinkish brown-to-bright pink discoloration throughout the seed coat. Unlike the pink coloration resulting from application of pink pesticidal seed treatments, the coloration was permanent and could not be removed by extended washing. Ten discolored seeds were disinfested in 0.5% NaOCl for 1 to 2 min and rinsed in sterile distilled water. Five seeds were placed on malt extract agar amended with streptomycin sulfate and tetracycline hydrochloride at 50 mg per liter each, and five seeds were placed on nutrient broth yeast extract agar (NBY) (3) and incubated under ambient lab conditions. No organisms were isolated from peas on the antibiotic agar, but pale pink bacterial colonies were recovered from each of the five peas on NBY. The pink colonies were streaked for selection of single colonies, stored at 4°C, and revived for growth in shaken (120 rpm) NBY broth to optical density (OD) = 0.1 at 640 nm (≈10 8 CFU/ml). Three pea plants and one control plant were grown in the greenhouse until pods were sufficiently developed to be syringe-inoculated at the suture with 100 μl of bacterial culture. The experiment was repeated using a second bacterial isolate. In each experiment, pods on inoculated plants, but not the control plant, exhibited pale pinkish areas and later produced seeds discolored in shades of pink matching those from the original sample. Some symptomatic seeds were shriveled or aborted as well as discolored. Discolored seeds from the two experiments were plated to NBY and pale pinkish colonies were recovered as before, but no such colonies were recovered from the controls. Two isolates from the original sample and two recovered from the experimental inoculations were tested for anaerobic and aerobic growth using API 50 CHE and API 20 NE tests (bio Mérieux Vitek, Inc., Hazlewood, MO). Known strains of Erwinia rhapontici and E. rubrifaciens from the collection of Dennis Gross (Texas A&M University) were identically analyzed for comparison. All four isolates from pea were gram-negative, facultatively anaerobic, motile rod-shaped bacteria that produced a diffusible pink pigment on NBY. Tests indicated that these strains were E. rhapontici, because the results agreed with previously published data (1,2). Results with the known strain of E. rhapontici were congruent with those from the pea strains. The strain of E. rubrifaciens also produced a pink pigment on NBY, but unlike the other strains, it grew well at 37°C and was negative for acetoin production, nitrate reduction, esculin hydrolysis, and maltose, rhamnose, inositol, and melibiose fermentation and did not assimilate citrate aerobically. Pink seed of pea has been previously reported from Alberta, Canada (2). References: (1) J. G. Holt et al. Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, MD, 1994. (2) H. C. Huang et al. Can. J. Plant Pathol. 12:445, 1990. (3) A. K. Vidaver. Appl. Microbiol. 15:1523, 1967.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».