First Report of Strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa) as a Host of a ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma americanum’-Related Strain in the United States
- E. V. Nikolaeva1 †
- R. Knier1
- C. Molnar1
- K. Peter2
- T. Jones2
- S. Costanzo3
- 1Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, Harrisburg, PA 17110
- 2Penn State Fruit FREC, Biglerville, PA 17307
- 3USDA-APHIS-PPQ-CPHST, Beltsville, MD 20705
In June 2018, while conducting a survey for possible presence of phytoplasma pathogens in Pennsylvania production fields, a strawberry plant (Fragaria × ananassa) was observed with symptoms of stunting and unseasonal reddening and distortion of leaves. Only one out of 500 strawberry plants expressed the described symptoms in a farm in Perry County, PA. Several leaves and stems were collected from the symptomatic plant as well as from a few asymptomatic ones for further work. Total DNA was extracted from 100 mg of leaf midveins with a DNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA). All DNA samples were initially tested using a phytoplasma universal real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay (Hodgetts et al. 2009). Positive amplification results were obtained only with samples derived from the symptomatic strawberry plant. To detect and identify the suspected phytoplasmal pathogen strain(s), the DNA samples were used as a template in conventional PCRs for amplification of phytoplasma 16S rRNA, secY, secA, and tuf gene sequences as previously described (Dickinson and Hodgetts 2013; Lee et al. 2004, 2010; Makarova et al. 2012). All of the obtained amplicons were of expected sizes, and no amplification was observed from the asymptomatic strawberry samples. PCR products were purified with a QIAquick PCR Purification Kit (Qiagen) and sequenced. Nucleotide sequences of the PCR products were deposited in the GenBank database under accession numbers MN227133 to MN227136. The nucleotide sequences were analyzed using Geneious software (Biomatters, Auckland, NZ) for sequence alignments and using iPhyClassifier (Zhao et al. 2009) for group-subgroup and ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma’ species assignments. The classification into 16Sr groups and subgroups was established by virtual restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis of PCR products compared with reference strains. The phytoplasma, termed strain SRL1-PA (Strawberry Red Leaf1-PA), was found to share 99.9% similarity with that of the ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma americanum’ reference strain (GenBank accession DQ174122). The virtual RFLP pattern derived from the query 16S rDNA F2nR2 fragment is most similar to the reference group XVIII, subgroup A (GenBank accession DQ174122), with a pattern similarity coefficient of 0.98. Another sample from the same strawberry plant was independently determined positive for ‘Ca. P. americanum’ by CPHST Beltsville Lab using nucleotide sequence analysis of 16S rRNA gene sequences amplified in end point PCR. Alignments and phylogenetic analyses of secY, secA, and tuf gene sequences confirmed the close relatedness of the Pennsylvania SRL1-PA strain with the reference strains of ‘Ca. P. americanum’. ‘Ca. P. americanum’ was previously reported (Lee et al. 2006) in Texas and Nebraska on potato and associated with potato purple top wilt disease. In 2019, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture team revisited the same farm and collected additional samples including some from potato but was not able to detect any phytoplasma. To our knowledge, this report provides the first evidence for the presence of a ‘Ca. P. americanum’-related strain in Pennsylvania and more importantly describes strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa) as a new host for this phytoplasma. With only one single positive strawberry plant in a single year, the true extent of disease spread on strawberries remains undetermined.
The author(s) declare no conflict of interest.
References:
- Dickinson, M., and Hodgetts, J., eds. 2013. Phytoplasma: Methods and Protocols. Science+Business Media, Dordrecht. Netherlands. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
- 2009. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75:2945. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02610-08 CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar .
- 2004. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 54:337. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.02697-0 CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar .
- 2006. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 56:1593. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.64251-0 CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar .
- 2010. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 60:2887. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.019695-0 CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar .
- 2012. PLoS One 7:e52092. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0052092 CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar .
- 2009. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 59:2582. https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.010249-0 CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar .
The findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.
The author(s) declare no conflict of interest.
Funding: This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.