Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection

, Volume 114, Issue 5, pp 196–204 | Cite as

Diversity of Macrophomina phaseolina from cotton in Egypt: Analysis of pathogenicity, chlorate phenotypes, and molecular characterization

  • M. R. Omar
  • K. A. Abd-Elsalam
  • A. A. Aly
  • A. M. A. El-Samawaty
  • J. -A. Verreet
Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Pathogenicity of 21 isolates of Macrophomina phaseolina was tested on three cotton cultivars under greenhouse conditions. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the main effects of both isolates (P= 0.000) and cultivars (P= 0.000) were very highly significant sources of variation in postemergence dampingoff and survival. Isolate x cultivar interaction was also a significant source of variation in postemergence damping-off (P= 0.03) and survival (P= 0.04). Statistically significant isolate, cultivar, and isolate x cultivar interaction suggest that physiologic specialization exists within M. phaseolina isolates pathogenic on cotton. It also implies that the resistance of the tested cultivars is a mixture of both vertical and horizontal resistance and there are significant differences among cultivars in both types of resistance. Cluster analysis of the isolates, based on their virulence patterns on different cultivars, differentiated the isolates reasonably well and grouped them into three pathotypes. The isolates were distinguished phenotypically by using a defined medium containing 120 mM potassium chlorate. Chlorate-resistant isolates (33.3%) grew densely on chlorate medium, while the remaining isolates (66.7%) were chlorate sensitive and showed either a restricted (23.8%) or feathery (42.9%) growth. No associations were observed between grouping the isolates based on their virulence patterns and their chlorate phenotypes. Random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analysis was used to evaluate the genetic diversity of the isolates. In this analysis, polymerase chain reaction was performed by using four random decamer primers. All the primers detected polymorphisms in all the tested isolates. Cluster analysis by the unweighted pairgroup method of arithmetic mean (UPGMA) placed the isolates in three distinct groups. Grouping the isolates based on cluster analysis of their virulence patterns did not match that based on cluster analysis of their RAPD profiles while, grouping the isolates based on cluster analysis of their RAPD profile exhibited clear correlation with their chlorate phenotypes.

Key words

chlorate assay cotton genetic variation Macrophomina phaseolina RAPD 

Variabilität ägyptischer Baumwollisolate von Macrophomina phaseolina: Analyse der Pathogenität und von Chlorat-Phänotypen sowie ihre molekulare Charakterisierung

Zusammenfassung

Die Pathogenität von 21 ägyptischen Isolaten von Macrophomina phaseolina aus Baumwolle wurde unter verschiedenen Bedingungen im Gewächshaus untersucht. Die Varianzanalyse (ANOVA) zeigte, dass Isolat (P= 0.000) und Sorte (P= 0.000) den Befall und die Überdauerung signifikant beeinflussten. Die Wechselwirkung zwischen Isolat und Sorte beeinflusste Befall (P= 0.03) und Überdauerung (P= 0.04) ebenfalls signifikant. Statistisch signifikante Wechselwirkungen zwischen Isolat, Sorte und Isolat x Sorte deuten einerseits auf eine physiologische Spezialisierung der Baumwollisolate von M. phaseolina hin und implizieren andererseits, dass die Sortenresistenz sowohl vertikaler als auch horizontaler Natur ist, wobei signifikante Sortenunterschiede in der Ausprägung beider Resistenzformen bestehen. Mit Hilfe einer auf der Virulenz der Isolate an den Baumwollsorten basierenden Clusteranalyse konnten die Isolate in drei verschiedene Pathotypen eingeteilt werden. Die Isolate konnten phänotypisch auf einem definierten Medium mit 120 mM Kaliumchlorat voneinander unterschieden werden. Chloratresis-tente Isolate (33,3%) entwickelten sich auf dem Medium gut, während die Chlorat-empfindlichen Isolate entweder ein eingeschränktes (23,8%) oder federförmiges (42,9%) Wachstum zeigten. Die Gruppierung der Isolate nach Virulenz und Chloratphänotyp stimmte nicht überein. Die genetische Verschiedenartigkeit der Isolate wurde mit Hilfe der Random-Amplified-Polymorphic-DNA-Methode und vier Random-Decamer-Primern analysiert. Jeder Primer wies Polymorphien in allen untersuchten Isolaten nach. Durch eine Clusteranalyse mit ungewichtetem paarweisem Vergleich der arithmetischen Mittel (UPGMA) konnten die Isolate in drei eindeutige voneinander getrennte Gruppen eingeteilt werden. Dabei stimmte die Gruppierung der Isolate anhand ihrer Virulenz nicht mit der Gruppierung anhand der RAPD-Profile überein, während die RAPD-Gruppierung mit deutlich mit den Chlorat-Phänotypen korrelierte.

Stichwörter

Baumwolle Chloratprobe genetische Varibilität Macrophomina phaseolina RAPD 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature

  1. Almeida, A.M.R., R.V. Abdelnoor, C.A.A. Arias, V.P. Carvalho, S.R.R. Martin, L.C. Benato, M.C. Pinto, C.G.P. Carvalho, 2003: Genotypic diversity among Brazilian isolates of Macrophomina phaseolina revealed by RAPD. Fitopatol. Bras. 28, 279–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chase, T.E., Y. Jiang, J. Mihail, 1994: Molecular variability in Macrophomina phaseolina. Phytopathology 84, 1149 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  3. Dhingra, O.D., J.B. Sinclair, 1978: Biology and Pathology of Macrophomina phaseolina. Imprensia Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil.Google Scholar
  4. Fuhlbohm, M., 1997: Genotypic diversity among Australian isolates of Macrophomina phaseolina. XX Biennial Australian Plant Pathology Society Conference, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand, p. 52.Google Scholar
  5. Guo, J.-R., F. Schnieder, K.A. Abd-Elsalam, J.-A. Verreet, 2005: Rapid and efficient extraction of genomic DNA from different phytopathogenic fungi using Dnazol reagent. Biotechnol. Lett. 27, 3–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Huff, D.R., T.E. Bunting, K.A. Plumley, 1994: Use of random amplified polymorphic DNA markers for the detection of genetic variation in Magnaporthe poae. Phytopathology 84, 1312–1316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jana, T.K., T.R. Sharma, N.K. Singh, 2005a: Ssr-based detection of genetic variability in the charcoal root rot pathogen Macrophomina phaseolina. Mycol. Res. 10 9, 81–86.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Jana, T.K., N.K. Singh, K.R. Koundal, T.R. Sharma, 2005b: Genetic differentiation of charcoal rot pathogen, Macrophomina phaseolina, into specific groups using UP-PCR. Can. J. Microbiol. 51, 159–164.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kulkarni, R.N., V.L. Chopra, 1982: Environment as the cause of differential interaction between host cultivars and pathogenic races. Phytopathology 72, 1384–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lebeda, A., T. Jendrulek, 1987: Application of cluster analysis for establishment of genetic similarity in genefor-gene hostparasite relationships. J. Phytopathol. 119, 131–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mohamed, H.A., 1962: Effect of date of planting on fungi and other microorganisms isolated from cotton seedlings. Plant Dis. Rep. 46, 801–803.Google Scholar
  12. Monga, D., S.S. Rathore, C.D. Mayee, T.R. Sharma, 2004: Differentiation of isolates of cotton root rot pathogens Rhizoctonia solani and R. bataticola using pathogenicity and RAPD markers. J. Plant Biochem. Biotechnol. 13, 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mostafa, M.A., 1959: Review of fungal diseases of cotton in Egypt. Egy. Rev. Sci. 3, 1–55.Google Scholar
  14. Nei, M., W. Li, 1979: Mathematical model for studying genetic variation in terms of restriction endonucleases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 79, 5269–5273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Omar, M.R., 1999: Studies on susceptibility of cotton to Macrophomina phaseolina. M.Sc. Thesis, Al-Azhar University, Cairo.Google Scholar
  16. Pearson, C.A.S., J.F. Leslie, F.W. Schwenk, 1986: Variable chlorate resistance in Macrophomina phaseolina from corn, soybean, and soil. Phytopathology 76, 646–649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Porta-Puglia, A., P. Crino, C. Mosconi, 1996: Variability in virulence to chickpea of an Italian population of Ascochytarabiei. Plant Dis. 80, 39–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Priestley, R.H., R.A. Bayles, J. Ryall, 1984: Identification of specific resistance against Pucciniastriiformis (yellow rust) in winter wheat varieties. II. Use of cluster analysis. J. Nat. Agric. Bot. 16, 477–485.Google Scholar
  19. Purkayastha, S., B. Kaur, N. Dilbaghi, J.B. Power, M.R. Davey, A. Chaudhury, 2003: Studies on cultural characteristics and nitrogen assimilation in Macrophomina phaseolina infecting cluster bean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba). In: Plant pathogen genomics — from sequence to application. Proceedings of the British Society for Plant Pathology Presidential Meeting, p. 33. British Society for Plant Pathology, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
  20. Purkayastha, S., B. Kaur, N. Dilbaghi, A. Chaudhury, 2006: Characterization of Macrophomina phaseolina, the charcoal rot pathogen of cluster bean, using conventional techniques and Pcr-based molecular markers. Plant Pathol. 55, 106–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sabet, K.A., L.D. Khan, 1969: Competitive saprophytic ability and inoculum potential of cotton rootinfecting fungi in five soils. Impire Cotton Growing Rev. 46, 119–133.Google Scholar
  22. Schilder, A.M.C., G.C. Bergstrom, 1990: Variation in virulence within the population of Pyrenophoratritici-repentis in New York. Phytopathology 80, 84–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sinclair, J.B., 1982: Compendium of Soybean Diseases. American Phytopathological Society. St. Paul., MN, USA.Google Scholar
  24. Sneath, P.H.A., R.R. Sokal, 1973: Numerical Taxonomy. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  25. Su, G., S.O. Suh, R.W. Schneider, J.S. Russin, 2001: Host specialization in the charcoal rot fungus, Macrophomina phaseolina. Phytopathology 91, 120–126.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Vanderplank, J.E., 1982: Host-Pathogen Interactions in Plant Disease. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  27. Vanderplank, J.E., 1984: Disease Resistance in Plants. 2nd Ed. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  28. Watkins, G.M., 1981: Compendium of Cotton Diseases. American Phytopathological Society. St. Paul., MN, USA.Google Scholar
  29. Williams, J.G.K., A.R. Kubelik, K.J. Livak, J.A. Rafalski, S.V. Tingey, 1990: DNA polymorphism amplified by arbitrary primers are useful as genetic markers. Nucleic Acids Res. 18, 6531–6535.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Wyllie, T.D., 1988: Charcoal rot of soybeans: current status. In: T.D. Wyllie, D.H. Scott: Soybean Diseases of the North Central Region, pp. 106–113. APS Press, St. Paul, MN, USA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Phythomedizinische Gesellschaft 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. R. Omar
    • 1
  • K. A. Abd-Elsalam
    • 1
  • A. A. Aly
    • 1
  • A. M. A. El-Samawaty
    • 1
  • J. -A. Verreet
    • 2
  1. 1.Agricultural Research CenterPlant Pathology Research Institute, Cotton Disease Research SectionGizaEgypt
  2. 2.Institute of PhytopathologyUniversity of KielKielGermany

Personalised recommendations