Mango malformation disease caused by Fusarium neocosmosporiellum in Mexico

Figures & data

Table 1. Reaction conditions and sequences of primers for PCR analysis of Fusarium spp

Primer code	Sequence (5ʹ → 3ʹ)	Expected fragment size (bp)	Specificity	PCR conditions
F: MAT-1	CGCCCTCTKAAYGSCTTCATG	≈200	MAT-1^a	30 cycles; 30 s at 94°C, 1 min at 59°C, 1 min at 72°C
R: MAT-1	GGARTARACYTTAGCAATYAGGGC
F: MAT-2	CGACCTCCCAAYGCYTACAT	≈800	MAT-2^a	30 cycles; 30 s at 94°C, 1 min at 59°C, 1 min at 72°C
R: MAT-2	TGGGCGGTACTGGTARTCRGG
F: EF-1	ATGGGTAAGGA(A/G)GACAAGAC	≈698	Fusarium spp.^bc	30 cycles; 30 s at 94°C, 30 s at 59°C, 1 min at 72°C
R: EF-2	GGA(G/A)GTACCAGT(G/C)ATCATGTT

F: primer forward

R: primer reverse.

^aLeslie and Summerell (2006);

^bGeiser et al. (2004);

^cO’Donnell et al. (1998).

Table 2. Disease severity scale for mango malformation disease proposed by Iqbal et al. (2006)

Value	Symptoms
0	No symptoms
1	Bud swelling for vegetative and floral malformations
2	Eruption of multiple shoots (vegetative) or short and thick rachis (floral)
3	Clustered shoots with shortened internodes (vegetative) or thickened peduncles (floral)
4	Small scaly leaves (vegetative) or flowers (floral)
5	Bunchy apex (vegetative) or compact deformed panicle (floral)

Fig. 1 a–d, (Colour online) Symptoms of mango malformation disease caused by Fusarium neocosmosporiellum from sampled trees. e–k, F. neocosmosporiellum morphological features. e, Top view of a F. neocosmosporiellum colony grown on PDA; f, Microconidia in situ (10 μm bar); g, Macroconidia (10 μm bar); h, Exudation of ascospores; i, Perithecia (50 μm bar); j, Ascus (5 μm bar); k, Ascospores with ornate wall (10 μm bar)

Fig. 2 Phylogram of neighbour-joining for TEF-1α gene from isolates of the Fusarium solani Species Complex and the sequence MK932796 of this study. Values at the nodes represent the percentage bootstrap scores (1000 replicates)

Table 3. Pooled results of the first and second pathogenicity assays of mango (cv. ‘Kent’) inoculated with 15 monoconidial Fusarium neocosmosporiellum isolates from mango trees

Isolate	Disease incidence percentage	Mean disease severity	Range
66VRSIN	100	4.8 A	4–5
67VRSIN	100	4.7 A	4–5
80VRSIN	100	4.7 A	4–5
88VRSIN	100	4.7 A	4–5
82VRSIN	100	4.6 A	4–5
90VRSIN	100	4.6 A	4–5
69VRSIN	100	4.6 A	4–5
72VRSIN	100	4.6 A	4–5
76VRSIN	100	4.6 A	4–5
85VRSIN	100	4.6 A	4–5
63VRSIN	100	4.6 A	4–5
92VRSIN	100	4.6 A	4–5
87VRSIN	100	4.5 A	4–5
70VRSIN	100	4.5 A	4–5
97VRSIN	100	4.5 A	4–5
Non inoculated check	0	0.0	0
Overall mean*		4.6

Disease incidence percentage, mean disease severity, and range of symptoms scored at 270 days post inoculation of each strain.

In a column, means followed by common letters indicate no significant differences among isolates at P = 0.05 by Dunn’s multiple range test.

Fig. 3 a, (Colour online) Eruption of multiple shoots (vegetative) in mango plant inoculated with Fusarium neocosmosporiellum. b, Control plant without symptoms

Leslie JF, Summerell BA. 2006. The Fusarium laboratory manual. Iowa, USA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd; p. 122–279.

 Google Scholar

Geiser D, Jiménez-Gasco M, Kang S, Makalowska I, Veeraraghavan N, Ward TJ, Zhang N, Kuldau GA, O’Donnell K. 2004. FUSARIUM-ID v. 1.0: a DNA sequence database for identifying Fusarium. Eur J Plant Pathol. 110:473–479. doi:https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EJPP.0000032386.75915.a0

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

O’Donnell K, Kistler HC, Cigelnik E, Ploetz RC. 1998. Multiple evolutionary origins of the fungus causing Panama disease of banana: concordant evidence from nuclear and mitochondrial gene genealogies. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. 95:2044–2049. doi:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.5.2044

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Iqbal Z, Rehman M, Dasti AA, Saleem A, Zafar Y. 2006. RAPD analysis of Fusarium isolates causing mango malformation disease in Pakistan. World J Microb Biot. 22:1161–1167. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-006-9157-x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar