Serological detection and immunogold localization of cross-reactive antigens shared by Camellia sinensis and Exobasidium vexans

9Citations
Citations of this article
12Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Aims: Pathogenicity of Exobasidium vexans, causal agent of blister blight of tea, was studied in 30 commercially cultivated tea varieties by analysing the antigenic patterns of host and pathogen using immunological techniques. Methods and Results: Whole plant inoculation of tea varieties with E. vexans showed that T-78 and T-17/1/54 were most susceptible and most resistant respectively. Antigen preparations from tea varieties, pathogen, nonpathogen (Fusarium oxysporum) and of nonhosts (Glycine max, Leucaena leucocephala and Oryza sativa) were compared by indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and dot-immunobinding assay using polyclonal antibodies raised against the pathogen, nonpathogen, susceptible and resistant tea varieties. Cross-reactive antigens (CRA) were found among susceptible varieties and E. vexans isolates but not in resistant varieties, nonhosts or nonpathogen. Indirect staining of antibodies using fluorescein isothiocyanate indicated CRA were concentrated mainly around epidermal and mesophyll cells in compatible host (T-78). This was substantiated by ultrastructural studies using gold-labelled antibodies through transmission electron microscopy which showed specific localization in the chloroplasts and host cytoplasm. Conclusion: Pathogenicity of E. vexans to different tea varieties is therefore related to the level of antigenic similarity between host and pathogen. Significance and Impact of the Study: Immunological methods proved to be valuable in screening commercially cultivated tea varieties against E. vexans. © 2007 The Authors.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chakraborty, B. N., & Sharma, M. (2007). Serological detection and immunogold localization of cross-reactive antigens shared by Camellia sinensis and Exobasidium vexans. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 103(5), 1669–1680. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03459.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free