Next Article in Journal
Antibacterial Activity of Arbutus pavarii Pamp against Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and UHPLC-MS/MS Profile of the Bioactive Fraction
Next Article in Special Issue
Large-Scale Seedling Grow-Out Experiments Do Not Support Seed Transmission of Sweet Potato Leaf Curl Virus in Sweet Potato
Previous Article in Journal
Advancing Timberline on Mt. Fuji between 1978 and 2018
Previous Article in Special Issue
Novel Bioformulations Developed from Pseudomonas putida BSP9 and Its Biosurfactant for Growth Promotion of Brassica juncea (L.)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 9
Issue 11
10.3390/plants9111538
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Use of LAMP for Assessing Botrytis cinerea Colonization of Bunch Trash and Latent Infection of Berries in Grapevines

by
Melissa Si Ammour
1,
Eleonora Castaldo
2,
Giorgia Fedele
1 and
Vittorio Rossi
1,*
1
Department of Sustainable Crop Production (DI.PRO.VES.), Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Via E. Parmense 84, 29122 Piacenza, Italy
2
Enbiotech s.r.l., Via Quarto dei Mille 6, 90129 Palermo, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2020, 9(11), 1538; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/plants9111538
Submission received: 22 October 2020 / Revised: 7 November 2020 / Accepted: 9 November 2020 / Published: 11 November 2020
(This article belongs to the Collection Feature Papers in Plant Protection)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
A real-time loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay was evaluated for the detection of Botrytis cinerea in grapevine bunch trash, immature berries, and ripening berries. A simple method for the preparation of crude extracts of grape tissue was also developed for on-site LAMP analysis. When tested with 14 other fungal species frequently found in grapevines, the LAMP assay was specific and sensitive to a B. cinerea DNA quantity of 0.1 ng/µL. The sensitivity was further tested using bunch trash samples with B. cinerea colonization levels between 6 and 100% and with bulk-berry samples composed of 4 pathogen-free berries or 4 berries among which 25 to 100% had been inoculated with B. cinerea. The LAMP assay detected the lowest B. cinerea colonization level tested in bunch trash and in immature and mature berries in less than 20 min. In single-berry experiments, LAMP amplified B. cinerea DNA from all artificially inoculated individual immature and mature berries. No amplification occurred in B. cinerea-free material. The real-time LAMP assay has the potential to be used as a rapid on-site diagnostic tool for assessing B. cinerea colonization in bunch trash and B. cinerea latent infections in berries, which represent critical stages for decision-making about disease management.

1. Introduction

Botrytis cinerea Pers. Fr. (teleomorph Botryotinia fuckeliana (de Bary) Whetzel) is a ubiquitous fungus that grows both parasitically and saprophytically on more than 230 plant species [1]. On grapevines (Vitis vinifera L.), the fungus causes Botrytis bunch rot (BBR), a disease of major economic importance [2,3].
Botrytis cinerea infects grapevines via several pathways [4], with one infection window between flowering to young cluster (corresponding to growth stages 53 and 73 [5], respectively), and a second infection window between veraison to berry maturity (growth stages 79 and 89, respectively). In the early season, conidia infect flowers through the styles, ovules, stamens, or petals, and infect young berries via the pedicel [4]. These infections cause blossom blight and the saprophytic colonization of “bunch trash” consisting of calyptras, tendrils, dead stamens, aborted flowers and berries [4,6]. Under favorable conditions, the saprophytic mycelium produces abundant conidia on the colonized bunch trash, which is considered a major source of inoculum for late-season infections [7,8,9,10]. In young berries, the fungus develops latent infections, and the berries remain symptomless until the fungus reactivates after veraison and causes berry rot [11,12,13]. After veraison, new infections on berries can be caused either by airborne conidia or by contact with the aerial mycelium growing from adjacent rotted berries (berry-to-berry infections) [4,14].
Control of B. cinerea mainly relies on the application of plant protection products (mainly fungicides but also botanicals and biocontrol agents [15,16,17,18]) at four vine growth stages, which correspond to the periods of risk for the main infection pathways [19,20]. Plant protection products are applied at flowering (to prevent flower rot, bunch trash colonization and latent infection); at pre-bunch closure (to prevent production of conidia on bunch trash); at veraison (to prevent infection by conidia or mycelium when berries begin to be susceptible); and at berry ripening (to prevent infection when berries are highly susceptible). Because a complete protection schedule based on interventions at all four growth stages is often unjustified [21,22], information and tools are needed to support decision-making by growers on when BBR control is likely to be effective. Together, agronomic features (including the susceptibility of the variety, trellis system, vineyard vigor, or the presence of wounds or cracks on the berry skin) represent a first risk factor to be considered [23,24,25]. Weather conditions represent a second risk factor; in the early season, infection severity increases with hours of wetness at temperatures near 20 °C [26,27,28,29]. From veraison to ripening, the risk of infection is highest at temperatures between 15 and 25 °C and also increases with hours of wetness or high relative humidity [19,24,27,29,30]. A mechanistic model was recently developed by González-Domínguez et al. [14] and was found to correctly predict disease risk based on weather conditions [31].
A third risk factor to be considered is the current level of B. cinerea establishment in the vineyard. Detection of B. cinerea in plant tissues is traditionally based on the direct plating of the tissues on agar media [32,33,34] or on microscopic examination of such tissues [7,9,12,16,35,36]. Latent infection in immature berries can be assessed by inducing tissue senescence by treating berries with paraquat or freezing [8,37]; latent infection in ripening berries can be assessed by incubating the berries under moist conditions [31]. All of these methods are time-consuming, lack sensitivity, often provide inconsistent results among assays and operators [32], and may be biased by the concomitant presence of other fungal species.
Continuous advances in DNA-based detection methods have provided fast, sensitive and reliable detection and quantification of fungal pathogens [38]. The newer DNA-based methods are generally superior to immunoassay methods such as the plate-trapped antigen enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (PTA-ELISA) [39] and to DNA hybridization methods such as the microfluidic chip assay (MCA) [40]. The PTA-ELISA and MCA assays are useful for studying latent infections of B. cinerea and early stages of the disease but are expensive and require complex operation and long processing times [39,40]. Molecular markers for specific polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-detection of B. cinerea were characterized by Rigotti et al. [41], which was followed by the development of a direct PCR assay for the detection of B. cinerea on pea-sized berries and receptacles [42]. Real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) assays have also been developed for the detection and quantification of B. cinerea in developing grape berries [43], grape stamens and ripe berries [37,44,45,46], pea-sized berries and receptacles [47], and bunch trash [48]. Despite some successful applications, the above-mentioned PCR-based systems are not suitable for testing plant material at the field site (near the sampling location) [49,50,51]; therefore, they cannot be applied for routine, in-vineyard assessment of B. cinerea.
Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) method [52], in contrast, enables the in-field detection of plant pathogens with portable devices [53,54,55,56]. Compared to PCR-based methods, LAMP amplification relies on a strand-displacing polymerase to amplify DNA under isothermal conditions [57]; LAMP-based methods, therefore, do not require thermal cycling. Moreover, LAMP enzymes are tolerant to substances that inhibit PCR reactions; hence, simple and rapid sample preparation methods, without DNA purification steps, are enough for LAMP assays [58,59]. LAMP assays have been used to detect B. cinerea strains that are resistant to benzimidazole fungicides and quinone outside inhibitors [60,61] and to detect B. cinerea in rose petals and pelargonium leaves [62], and in tomato and strawberry petals [63].
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the performance of a real-time LAMP-based method for the detection of B. cinerea in bunch trash and in immature and ripening berries. A simple method for the preparation of crude extracts was also developed and tested for the LAMP assay; if effective, this preparation method could be used as a part of a rapid in-field LAMP assay to evaluate the current establishment of B. cinerea in vineyards at critical stages for BBR management.

2. Results

2.1. Specificity and Analytical Sensitivity

When tested for its specificity to B. cinerea, the LAMP assay consistently amplified the DNA of B. cinerea but never amplified the DNA of non-target organisms (Table 1). Quantities of B. cinerea DNA at 1.0 ng/µL and 0.1 ng/µL were consistently amplified in all 8 replicate trials, while 0.01 ng/µL was amplified in only half of them, and 0.001 ng/µL was never amplified (Figure 1). Therefore, the analytical sensitivity of the LAMP assay for B. cinerea DNA was 0.1 ng/µL. Positive and negative controls always resulted in amplification and non-amplification of the B. cinerea DNA, as expected.

2.2. Evaluation of LAMP with Bunch Trash

The LAMP amplified the B. cinerea DNA in all bunch trash samples with colonization levels between 6 and 100%. The assay, however, amplified one-third of the samples that had not been artificially inoculated with B. cinerea.

2.3. Evaluation of LAMP with Berries

The LAMP amplified B. cinerea DNA from all individual immature and mature berries excised from clusters that had been artificially inoculated during flowering but did not amplify B. cinerea DNA from any berries from clusters that had not been inoculated with the fungus. Amplification also occurred in all of the bulk-berry samples containing 25, 50, 75, or 100% of inoculated berries, i.e., the LAMP assay was able to detect B. cinerea DNA in 1 infected immature and mature berry in a bulk sample of 4 immature berries in less than 20 min reaction time (Figure 2).

3. Discussion

In the present study, a real-time LAMP assay was evaluated in terms of specificity and sensitivity for the detection of B. cinerea in different grapevine tissues: bunch trash, immature berries, and ripening berries. A simple method of crude extract preparation, which can be conducted on-site with minimal laboratory equipment, was also developed for BBR diagnosis and early detection.
When B. cinerea plus 14 other fungi commonly present on grape vine bunches were tested, the LAMP assay was found to be specific for B. cinerea and was also found to be sensitive to a B. cinerea DNA quantity of 0.1 ng/µL. These results are consistent with previous studies in which LAMP assays specific for B. cinerea were developed and tested [62,63]. However, the analytical sensitivity determined in our assays was lower than the detection limit of 10−3 ng/µL reported by Duan et al. [63] and 6.5 pg reported by Tomlinson et al. [62]. The latter authors [62] estimated that the developed LAMP assay could detect the equivalent of 20 pathogenic cells. In addition, Mehli et al. [64] developed a TaqMan real-time PCR assay for B. cinerea with a detection limit of 1 pg, which corresponds to approximately three fungal cells. We therefore infer that our LAMP assay could detect the equivalent of approximately 300 pathogen cells. This analytical sensitivity level was sufficient to detect the lowest B. cinerea colonization levels tested in crude extracts of bunch trash (i.e., 6% of bunch trash colonized) and in immature and mature berries (25%, i.e., 1 of 4 berries infected in a bulk sample), with no amplification in B. cinerea-free material. Actually, the LAMP amplified some field-collected bunch trash samples that have not been artificially inoculated with B. cinerea; however, based on the overall results of this work, detection of the fungus in these samples may indicate that the bunch trash had been naturally colonized by B. cinerea in the vineyard before sample collection at full flowering rather than the assay having provided false positive detection. Therefore, the LAMP assay described here can be considered a sensitive tool for the on-site detection of B. cinerea in grape tissues.
LAMP methods have been developed to enable early on-site detection of plant pathogens from crude extract samples, including the detection of latent infections of Plasmopara viticola in grape leaves [65], grapevine phytoplasmas in crude leaf-vein homogenate [66], Peronospora effusa in symptomless spinach leaves [67], Spiroplasma citri in citrus leaves [68], and Phytophthora infestans in potato leaves [54], as well as the detection of plant viruses and viroids [69]. When coupled with spore trap systems, LAMP assays have been used for the detection and quantification of airborne pathogen inoculum, including the conidia of Alternaria solani and sporangia of P. infestans [70], and the conidia of Magnaporthe oryzae [56]. LAMP assays have been also developed for the quantification of airborne Erysiphe necator inoculum and have been evaluated for potential implementation by vine growers for the initiation of fungicide programmes [55,71]. LAMP has recently been applied for the detection of B. cinerea resistance to benzimidazole fungicides [60] and for the on-site detection of B. cinerea resistance to quinone outside inhibitors [61].
The LAMP assay tested in the current study has the potential to be used for improving the control of BBR in vineyards by enabling vineyard managers to assess the incidence of B. cinerea in some plant parts at critical growth stages. For instance, the decision to apply plant protection products at pre-bunch closure in order to reduce the production of conidia on bunch trash colonized by B. cinerea may depend on the colonization level; plant protection products could be omitted when the colonization is low [16,31,48]. The decision to apply products during berry ripening may depend on the incidence of latent infections that established in early growth stages; the first BBR foci in clusters are often caused by latent infections that reactivate after veraison and result in rotted berries, whose mycelium cause berry-to-berry infection and produce conidia for further infections [31]. Similarly, BBR may develop in grape bunches during transport or storage when apparently healthy grape berries with latent infections are harvested [31,37,72]. The assessment of B. cinerea colonization of bunch trash and of B. cinerea latent infections in young, ripening, and ripe berries may therefore improve decision making concerning BBR control. This assessment, however, is not part of the current practice, because the current laboratory methods for the detection of B. cinerea are complex, time consuming, and expensive.
The advantages of LAMP are numerous. LAMP is highly selective and sensitive, inexpensive, and rapid; in the current research, the average time required for processing a sample was <1 h, including the crude extract preparation and the LAMP reaction time. In addition, the LAMP assay is easy to perform.
It requires only (i) a set of four to six primers, with the addition of two Loop primers, that generate billions of DNA copies within 40 to 60 min and that increase the specificity, the sensitivity, and the speed of the reaction [56,73,74]; (ii) a strand-displacing DNA polymerase to amplify DNA; (iii) an instrument that maintains a constant temperature (LAMP is an isothermal process and does not require the expensive thermocyclers used for PCR), e.g., a portable battery-powered isothermal instrument such as that used in our experiments; and (iv) a portable battery-powered combined centrifuge/vortexer (combi-spin) for sample preparation, when necessary.
These features make LAMP particularly suitable for an in-field molecular testing system. Because LAMP relies on a strand-displacing polymerase to efficiently amplify DNA, or RNA sequences through combination with reverse transcription, it is less sensitive than PCR to potentially inhibitory substances (e.g., polysaccharides, polyphenols, phytoalexins, and lignin) present in complex samples such as plant tissues [58,66,75].
Practical use of LAMP for assessing the incidence of bunch trash colonized by B. cinerea and of berries with latent infections of B. cinerea should be based on detailed sampling and assessment via on-site LAMP assay. The current research has provided an introduction to such sampling and assessment, but further work is needed for the development and optimization of sampling and assessment protocols of LAMP in vineyard management.
In conclusion, the real-time LAMP assay has the potential to be used as a diagnostic tool for assessing B. cinerea colonization in bunch trash and latent infections of berries. The information provided would be highly valuable for decision-making regarding the control of BBR in vineyards. Early diagnosis and disease monitoring are key components of IPM because they support decision making and help avoid unjustified fungicide treatments and their negative effects [76,77].

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Real-Time LAMP

4.1.1. LAMP Kit

Real-time LAMP assays were performed using a commercial LAMP kit (Botrytis cinerea EBT-547, Enbiotech, Palermo, Italy). A reaction mixture (25 µL) was prepared by distributing 22 µL of LAMP mix, containing a strand-displacing polymerase, into 200 µL reaction tubes containing dried LAMP primers to which a template DNA was added (3 µL); the LAMP mix and primers were provided with the kit. Finally, mineral oil (30 µL) was added to the reaction tubes to prevent evaporation of the reagents. The reaction tubes were briefly centrifuged in a mini centrifuge, and immediately placed into the ICGENE mini (Cat.No.EBT 801) portable instrument (Enbiotech, Palermo, Italy), which measures fluorescence for real-time detection of the isothermal amplification of 12 samples simultaneously. LAMP amplifications were conducted at a constant temperature of 65 °C for 60 min. LAMP assays included a positive control and one negative control (no-template control) consisting of sterile-distilled water (provided with the kit). Positive and negative controls always resulted in amplification and non-amplification of the B. cinerea DNA, as expected.

4.1.2. DNA Extraction

Purified genomic DNA was obtained from fresh mycelium of 15 fungal species (Table 1), which were used for the specificity and sensitivity assays. Fresh mycelium of each species was obtained by scrapping the surface of colonies grown on potato dextrose agar (PDA) for 10 days in an incubator at 20 °C and with a 12 h photoperiod. For Plasmopara viticola and Erysiphe necator, DNA was extracted from leaf pieces with sporulating lesions. Genomic DNA of the fungal isolates was obtained from about 100 mg of fresh mycelium from PDA or leaf discs. Each sample (100 mg) was placed in a 2 mL microcentrifuge tube, to which about 100 mg of glass sand (425–600 µm) and two glass beads (5 mm) were added. The samples were mixed with 500 µL of cetyl trimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) extraction buffer (2% CTAB, 100 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.0, 20 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid [EDTA], 1.4 M NaCl, and 1% polyvinylpyrrolidone) and placed in a Mixer Mill MM200 (Retsch GmbH, Haan, Germany) for 1 min at 30 cycles/s. Subsequently, a CTAB DNA extraction procedure was followed as described by Si Ammour et al. [48]. A NanoDrop™ 2000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA) was used to determine the yield and purity of the extracted DNA were determined, and the DNA concentration of each sample was adjusted to contain 10 ng of fungal DNA in a new microcentrifuge tube.

4.1.3. Specificity

The most common grape pathogens and other fungal species frequently found in grapevines and in air samples from vineyards (Table 1) were used to test the specificity of the LAMP assay for the detection of B. cinerea in grape tissue. The B. cinerea strains, which belonged to the transposon genotypes transposa (T) or vacuma (V) [28], and the other fungi tested belong to the culture collection of the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (UCSC), Piacenza (Italy), Department of Sustainable Crop Production of. Plasmopara viticola and Erysiphe necator isolates were sampled in 2017 and 2018 from USCC vineyard and were maintained by inoculation on grape plants (cv. Merlot) in a greenhouse. All specificity tests were conducted twice.

4.1.4. Analytical Sensitivity

Botrytis cinerea DNA, obtained from PDA cultures as described earlier, was used to evaluate the sensitivity of the LAMP assay. The DNA was 10-fold serially diluted (from 1 to 0.001 ng/µL) in sterile-distilled water. The limit of detection (LOD) of the LAMP assay was defined as the minimum quantity of B. cinerea DNA from which consistent LAMP amplifications were obtained. The sensitivity tests were conducted four times, with two replicates each time. LAMP assays included a standard positive control consisting of B. cinerea DNA fragments (provided with the kit) and one no-template control (water control) consisting of sterile-distilled water (provided with the kit). Positive and negative controls always resulted in amplification and non-amplification of the B. cinerea DNA, as expected.

4.2. Evaluation of LAMP with Bunch Trash

4.2.1. Plant Material and B. cinerea Inoculation

In 2017, bunch trash samples were collected in a vineyard in Castell’Arquato, Northern Italy (44°51′26.1′′ N 9°51′20.7′′ E, 400 m asl). The vines (V. vinifera) cv. Merlot were planted in 2007, known as a highly sensitive variety to B. cinerea [78,79]; the vines were trained using the Guyot system with 10-12 buds per cane, one cane per plant; 1.0 m within and 2.3 m between-row spacings. An integrated pest management (IPM) program [76] was followed to manage the vineyard, with no fungicides for the control of B. cinerea, with between-row grass, and with no irrigation. At full flowering (stage 65 [5]), bunch trash was sampled from 50 random clusters by shaking them carefully inside paper bags; bunch trash consisted of calyptras, stamens, unset flowers, and aborted fruitlets. Bunch trash was carried to the laboratory in a cool bag at 5 °C, and instantly desiccated at 35–40 °C for 72 h, weighed, and divided into 1 g (dry weight) samples, which were then kept at room temperature.
For inoculum preparation, 10-day-old cultures grown on PDA in Petri dishes of B. cinerea (isolate 213T) were used to obtain a conidial suspension as described earlier. The dishes were flood with sterile-distilled water and gently rubbed on the surface with a sterile rod and the obtained conidial suspension was passed through two layers of autoclaved gauze. The number of conidia was determined using a hemocytometer and the concentration was adjusted to 105 conidia/mL.
For inoculation, each 1 g bunch trash sample was spread on autoclaved filter paper on the bottom of a Petri dish (60 mm in diameter); a micropipette was then used to uniformly inoculate each sample with 1 mL of the B. cinerea conidial suspension. One ml of sterile-distilled water was added to other bunch trash samples as a negative (non-inoculated) control. Petri dishes with either inoculated or non-inoculated bunch trash samples were placed in a growth chamber at 20 °C, in the dark to favor conidial germination, mycelial growth, and bunch trash colonization. After 18 h in the growth chamber, the bunch trash samples were placed in a laminar flow hood at room temperature and left to dry for 2 h.

4.2.2. Preparation of Crude Extracts from Bunch Trash

Bulk samples of bunch trash were prepared with different levels of B. cinerea colonization (0, 6, 12, 25, 50, 75, and 100%), which were obtained by blending inoculated and non-inoculated bunch trash samples. Crude extracts were obtained from each of the seven bunch trash colonization levels in three replicate samples (0.1 g each). Samples were placed in a 2 mL microcentrifuge tube with 1 mL of extraction buffer (provided with the LAMP kit); the samples were shaken in a vortex apparatus for 10 s and then kept for 10 min at room temperature. The tubes were centrifuged for 10 s in a minicentrifuge, and the crude extract was diluted 1/10 in sterile-distilled water. The diluted crude extract was then used as a template in the LAMP assays. The experiment was conducted three times. LAMP assays included a standard positive control consisting of B. cinerea DNA fragments (provided with the kit) and one no-template control (water control) consisting of sterile-distilled water (provided with the kit). Positive and negative controls always resulted in amplification and non-amplification of the B. cinerea DNA, as expected.

4.3. Evaluation of LAMP with Berries

4.3.1. Plant Material and B. cinerea Inoculation

Grape plants in pots (20 plants, cv. Merlot) were grown in the experimental vineyard of the UCSC campus in 2018 and 2019. At growth stages 62 and 65 (beginning and full flowering, respectively), 30 inflorescences (still attached to the plants) were uniformly sprayed with a conidial suspension of B. cinerea (105 conidia/mL) prepared as previously described. The inoculated inflorescences were sealed in polyethylene bags immediately after inoculation (to maintain moisture and favor the infection by B. cinerea) for 24 h. At the same time, 30 inflorescences at growth stages 62 and 65 (still attached to the plants) were not inoculated but were sprayed with a commercial fungicide containing fludioxonil (25%) and cyprodinil (37.5%) (Switch; Syngenta Crop Protection), at 0.8 g/l, to prevent natural infection. Both inoculated and non-inoculated inflorescences were kept in paper bags during fruit development to prevent natural infections by B. cinerea.
At the growth stages 79 (end of fruit development) and 89 (berries ripe for harvest), both inoculated and non-inoculated bunches were collected, washed using tap water, and surface sterilized, by immersion in a sodium hypochlorite solution (30%) for 1 min, and rinsed three times in sterile-distilled water, to remove epiphytic microflora including B. cinerea which may be present on the berry surface. Bunches collected at growth stages 79 and 89 were used to evaluate the LAMP detection of latent infections of B. cinerea in immature and mature berries, respectively, in both single-berry and bulk-berry assays (described in the next section).
For the assay with immature berries, berries were excised with the pedicel from the clusters that had been or had not been inoculated during flowering; the former but not the latter were expected to have latent infections. To confirm the presence of latent infections, a sub-sample of 20 freshly collected berries were cut in half using a sterile scalpel under a laminar flow hood, and the halves were placed on PDA in Petri dishes with the cut surface down. The dishes were sealed and incubated at 20 °C with a 12 h photoperiod to favor fungal growth on the medium. Dishes were inspected daily to assess the incidence of berries showing the development of B. cinerea colonies. No fungal growth was observed from berries excised from non-inoculated bunches, while typical B. cinerea colonies grew from 65% of the berries from inoculated bunches.
For the assay with mature berries, berries were excised with the pedicel from the clusters that had not been inoculated during flowering. These berries, which were expected to be free of infection, were rinsed three times with sterile-distilled water, surface-sterilized, to remove epiphytic microflora including B. cinerea which may be present on the berry surface, by immersion in a sodium hypochlorite solution (30%) for 1 min, rinsed three times in sterile-distilled water, and placed separately on a layer of filter paper on the bottom of Petri dishes (90 mm in diameter; four berries per dish). The pedicel was removed using a sterile scalpel, and each berry was inoculated by depositing a 10 µL drop of B. cinerea inoculum (105 conidia/mL; prepared as described earlier) on the pedicel wound. Other berries were inoculated with a drop of sterile water and represented the non-inoculated control. The Petri dishes were sealed with Parafilm® M (Merck Life Science S.r.l., Milano, Italy) and were placed in an incubator at 20 °C for 24 h to favor conidial germination and berry infection. One day after inoculation with either B. cinerea or sterile water, all berries were symptomless and were used for the preparation of crude extract (described in the next section).

4.3.2. Preparation of Crude Extracts from Berries

Individual berries (either immature or mature) were cut in half using a sterile scalpel. For single-berry assays, berries were processed individually. For bulk-berry assays, berries were grouped (4 berries per group) to obtain the following expected levels of B. cinerea infection: 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100%. For the bulk-berry assays with immature berries, for example, the 75% infection level contained 3 berries from inoculated bunches and 1 berry from non-inoculated bunches. For the bulk-berry assay with mature berries, for example, the 75% infection level contained or 3 wounded berries that had been inoculated with the fungus and 1 wounded berry that had been inoculated with sterile water. Individual berries were placed in a 2 mL microcentrifuge tube with 1 mL of extraction buffer (provided with the LAMP kit), and bulk-berry samples were placed in a 50 mL centrifuge tube with 3 mL of extraction buffer. Both single-berry and bulk-berry samples were shaken using a vortex apparatus for 10 s and kept at room temperature for 10 min. The tubes were then centrifuged for 10 s in a microcentrifuge, and the crude extract was diluted 1/10 in sterile-distilled water. The diluted lysate was used promptly as a template in the LAMP assays. The experiment was conducted three times, with two replicate samples. LAMP assays included a standard positive control consisting of B. cinerea DNA fragments (provided with the kit) and one no-template control (water control) (provided with the kit) consisting of sterile-distilled water, which resulted in amplification and non-amplification of the B. cinerea DNA, respectively.

5. Patents

Patent licenses WO 00/28082, WO 01/34790, WO 01/77317, WO 02/24902, and WO 01/34838, owned by Eiken Chemical Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan.
Patent for industrial invention n. 0001425753 dated 09.11.2016, extended with priority in Europe with question no. EP15179273.6 by Bionat Italia S.r.l., used under license by Enbiotech S.r.l.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology, V.R., M.S.A. and E.C.; investigation, M.S.A., E.C. and G.F.; writing—original draft preparation, V.R. and M.S.A.; writing—review and editing, V.R., M.S.A., E.C. and G.F.; supervision, V.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

G.F. was supported by the Doctoral school in Agro-Food System (Agrisystem) of the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (Italy).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Coley-Smith, J.R.; Verhoeff, K.; Jarvis, W.R. The Biology of Botrytis; Academic Press Inc.: London, UK, 1980; p. 318. [Google Scholar]
  2. Elad, Y.; Williamson, B.; Tudzynski, P.; Delen, N. Botrytis: Biology, Pathology and Control; Springer Science & Business Media: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; p. 428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ribéreau-Gayon, J.; Riberau-Gayon, P.; Seguin, G. Botrytis cinerea in enology. In The Biology of Botrytis; Coley-Smith, J.R., Verhoeff, K., Jarvis, W.R., Eds.; Academic Press Inc.: London, UK, 1980; pp. 251–274. [Google Scholar]
  4. Elmer, P.A.G.; Michailides, T.J. Epidemiology of Botrytis cinerea in Orchard and Vine Crops. In Botrytis: Biology, Pathology and Control; Elad, Y., Williamson, B., Tudzynski, P., Delen, N., Eds.; Springer Science & Business Media: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 243–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lorenz, D.; Eichhorn, K.; Bleiholder, H.; Klose, R.; Meier, U. Phänologische Entwicklungsstadien der Weinrebe (Vitis vinifera L. ssp. vinifera). Codierung und Beschreibung nach der erweiterten BBCH-Skala. Wein Wiss. 1994, 49, 66–70. [Google Scholar]
  6. Seyb, A.; Gaunt, R.; Trought, M.; Frampton, C.; Balasubramaniam, R.; Jaspers, M. Relationship between debris within grape bunches and Botrytis infection of berries. N. Z. Plant Prot. 2000, 53, 451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Calvo-Garrido, C.; Usall, J.; Viñas, I.; Elmer, P.A.; Cases, E.; Teixidó, N. Potential secondary inoculum sources of Botrytis cinerea and their influence on bunch rot development in dry Mediterranean climate vineyards. Pest Manag. Sci. 2014, 70, 922–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Holz, G.; Gütschow, M.; Coertze, S.; Calitz, F.J. Occurrence of Botrytis cinerea and subsequent disease expression at different positions on leaves and bunches of grape. Plant Dis. 2003, 87, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Nair, N.; Guilbaud-Oulton, S.; Barchia, I.; Emmett, R. Significance of carry over inoculum, flower infection and latency on the incidence of Botrytis cinerea in berries of grapevines at harvest in New South Wales. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 1995, 35, 1177–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Viret, O.; Keller, M.; Jaudzems, V.G.; Cole, F.M. Botrytis cinerea infection of grape flowers: Light and electron microscopical studies of infection sites. Phytopathology 2004, 94, 850–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Holz, G.; Coertze, S.; Basson, E. Latent infection of Botrytis cinerea in grape pedicels leads to postharvest decay. Phytopathology 1997, 87, S43. [Google Scholar]
  12. Keller, M.; Viret, O.; Cole, F.M. Botrytis cinerea infection in grape flowers: Defense reaction, latency, and disease expression. Phytopathology 2003, 93, 316–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. McClellan, W.; Hewitt, W.B. Early Botrytis Rot of Grapes: Time of Infection and Latency of Botrytis cinerea Pers. in Vitis vinifera L. Phytopathology 1973, 63, 1151–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. González-Domínguez, E.; Caffi, T.; Ciliberti, N.; Rossi, V. A mechanistic model of Botrytis cinerea on grapevines that includes weather, vine growth stage, and the main infection pathways. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0140444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Calvo-Garrido, C.; Viñas, I.; Elmer, P.A.; Usall, J.; Teixidó, N. Suppression of Botrytis cinerea on necrotic grapevine tissues by early-season applications of natural products and biological control agents. Pest Manag. Sci. 2014, 70, 595–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Fedele, G.; González-Domínguez, E.; Si Ammour, M.; Languasco, L.; Rossi, V. Reduction of Botrytis cinerea colonization of and sporulation on bunch trash. Plant Dis. 2020, 104, 808–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Pertot, I.; Giovannini, O.; Benanchi, M.; Caffi, T.; Rossi, V.; Mugnai, L. Combining biocontrol agents with different mechanisms of action in a strategy to control Botrytis cinerea on grapevine. Crop Prot. 2017, 97, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ștefan, A.L.; Paica, A.; Iacob, F.; Iacomi, B.M. Sustainable use of fungicides and biocontrol agents for Botrytis gray mold management in grapes. Sci. Papers Ser. B Hortic. 2015, 59, 159–162. [Google Scholar]
  19. Broome, J.; English, J.; Marois, J.; Latorre, B.; Aviles, J. Development of an infection model for Botrytis bunch rot of grapes based on wetness duration and temperature. Phytopathology 1995, 85, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bulit, J.; Lafon, R.; Guillier, G. Périodes favorables a l’application de traitments pour lutter contre la pourriture grise de la vigne. Phytiatr. Phytopharm. 1970, 19, 159–165. [Google Scholar]
  21. González-Domínguez, E.; Fedele, G.; Caffi, T.; Delière, L.; Sauris, P.; Gramaje, D.; Ramos-Saez de Ojer, J.L.; Díaz-Losada, E.; Díez-Navajas, A.M.; Bengoa, P. A network meta-analysis provides new insight into fungicide scheduling for the control of Botrytis cinerea in vineyards. Pest Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 324–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. González-Domínguez, E.; Fedele, G.; Languasco, L.; Rossi, V. Interactions among fungicides applied at different timings for the control of Botrytis bunch rot in grapevine. Crop Prot. 2019, 120, 30–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Mundy, D.; Beresford, R. Susceptibility of grapes to Botrytis cinerea in relation to berry nitrogen and sugar concentration. N. Z. Plant Prot. 2007, 60, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nair, N.; Emmett, R.; Parker, F. Some factors predisposing grape berries to infection by Botrytis cinerea. N. Z. J. Exp. Agric. 1988, 16, 257–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Nelson, R. Factors influencing the infection of table Grapes by Botrytis cinerea. Phytopathology 1951, 41, 319–326. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ciliberti, N.; Fermaud, M.; Languasco, L.; Rossi, V. Influence of fungal strain, temperature, and wetness duration on infection of grapevine inflorescences and young berry clusters by Botrytis cinerea. Phytopathology 2015, 105, 325–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Ciliberti, N.; Fermaud, M.; Roudet, J.; Rossi, V. Environmental conditions affect Botrytis cinerea infection of mature grape berries more than the strain or transposon genotype. Phytopathology 2015, 105, 1090–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Ciliberti, N.; Fermaud, M.; Roudet, J.; Languasco, L.; Rossi, V. Environmental effects on the production of Botrytis cinerea conidia on different media, grape bunch trash, and mature berries. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2016, 22, 262–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Latorre, B.; Rioja, M. The effect of temperature and relative humidity on conidial germination of Botrytis cinerea. Int. J. Agric. Natl. Resour. 2002, 29, 66–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nair, N.; Allen, R. Infection of grape flowers and berries by Botrytis cinerea as a function of time and temperature. Mycol. Res. 1993, 97, 1012–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Fedele, G.; González-Domínguez, E.; Delière, L.; Díez-Navajas, A.M.; Rossi, V. Consideration of Latent Infections Improves the Prediction of Botrytis Bunch Rot Severity in Vineyards. Plant Dis. 2020, 104, 1291–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Abdelwahab, H.; Younis, R.A. Early detection of gray mold in grape using conventional and molecular methods. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2012, 11, 15241–15245. [Google Scholar]
  33. Edwards, S.G.; Seddon, B. Selective media for the specific isolation and enumeration of Botrytis cinerea conidia. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2001, 32, 63–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Dugan, F.M.; Lupien, S.L.; Grove, G.G. Incidence, Aggressiveness and In Planta Interactions of Botrytis cinerea and other Filamentous Fungi Quiescent in Grape Berries and Dormant Buds in Central Washington State. J. Phytopathol. 2002, 150, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Jaspers, M.V.; Seyb, A.M.; Trought, M.C.T.; Balasubramaniam, R. Overwintering grapevine debris as an important source of Botrytis cinerea inoculum. Plant Pathol. 2013, 62, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Mundy, D.C.; Agnew, R.H.; Wood, P.N. Grape tendrils as an inoculum source of Botrytis cinerea in vineyards a review. N. Z. Plant Prot. 2012, 65, 218–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sanzani, S.M.; Schena, L.; De Cicco, V.; Ippolito, A. Early detection of Botrytis cinerea latent infections as a tool to improve postharvest quality of table grapes. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2012, 68, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Capote, N.; Pastrana, A.M.; Aguado, A.; Sánchez-Torres, P. Molecular tools for detection of plant pathogenic fungi and fungicide resistance. Plant Pathol. 2012, 151–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Obanor, F.O.; Walter, M.; Waipara, N.W.; Cernusko, R. Rapid method for the detection and quantification of Botrytis cinerea in plant tissues. N. Z. Plant Prot. 2002, 55, 150–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Wang, L.; Li, P.C.H. Flexible Microarray Construction and Fast DNA Hybridization Conducted on a Microfluidic Chip for Greenhouse Plant Fungal Pathogen Detection. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 10509–10516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rigotti, S.; Gindro, K.; Richter, H.; Viret, O. Characterization of molecular markers for specific and sensitive detection of Botrytis cinerea Pers.: Fr. in strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) using PCR. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2002, 209, 169–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gindro, K.; Pezet, R.; Viret, O.; Richter, H. Development of a rapid and highly sensitive direct-PCR assay to detect a single conidium of Botrytis cinerea Pers.: Fr in vitro and quiescent forms in planta. Vitis-Geilweilerhof 2005, 44, 139. [Google Scholar]
  43. Cadle-Davidson, L. Monitoring Pathogenesis of Natural Botrytis cinerea Infections in Developing Grape Berries. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2008, 59, 387. [Google Scholar]
  44. Celik, M.; Kalpulov, T.; Zutahy, Y.; Ish-shalom, S.; Lurie, S.; Lichter, A. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of Botrytis inoculated on table grapes by qPCR and antibodies. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2009, 52, 235–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Diguta, C.F.; Rousseaux, S.; Weidmann, S.; Bretin, N.; Vincent, B.; Guilloux-Benatier, M.; Alexandre, H. Development of a qPCR assay for specific quantification of Botrytis cinerea on grapes. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2010, 313, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Hill, G.N.; Evans, K.J.; Beresford, R.M.; Dambergs, R.G. Comparison of methods for the quantification of botrytis bunch rot in white wine grapes. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2014, 20, 432–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Saito, S.; Dunne, K.J.; Evans, K.J.; Barry, K.; Cadle-Davidson, L.; Wilcox, W.F. Optimisation of techniques for quantification of Botrytis cinerea in grape berries and receptacles by quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Aust. J. Grape Wine Res. 2013, 19, 68–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Si Ammour, M.; Fedele, G.; Morcia, C.; Terzi, V.; Rossi, V. Quantification of Botrytis cinerea in Grapevine Bunch Trash by Real-Time PCR. Phytopathology 2019, 109, 1312–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Hughes, K.; Giltrap, P.; Barton, V.; Hobden, E.; Tomlinson, J.; Barber, P. On-site real-time PCR detection of Phytophthora ramorum causing dieback of Parrotia persica in the UK. Plant Pathol. 2006, 55, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lin, Y.-H.; Lin, Y.-J.; Chang, T.-D.; Hong, L.-L.; Chen, T.-Y.; Chang, P.-F.L. Development of a TaqMan Probe-Based Insulated Isothermal Polymerase Chain Reaction (iiPCR) Assay for Detection of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense Race 4. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0159681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Tomlinson, J.A.; Boonham, N.; Hughes, K.J.D.; Griffin, R.L.; Barker, I. On-Site DNA Extraction and Real-Time PCR for Detection of Phytophthora ramorum in the Field. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 6702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Notomi, T.; Okayama, H.; Masubuchi, H.; Yonekawa, T.; Watanabe, K.; Amino, N.; Hase, T. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification of DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000, 28, e63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Harper, S.J.; Ward, L.I.; Clover, G.R.G. Development of LAMP and Real-Time PCR Methods for the Rapid Detection of Xylella fastidiosa for Quarantine and Field Applications. Phytopathology 2010, 100, 1282–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Si Ammour, M.; Bilodeau, G.J.; Tremblay, D.M.; Van der Heyden, H.; Yaseen, T.; Varvaro, L.; Carisse, O. Development of Real-Time Isothermal Amplification Assays for On-Site Detection of Phytophthora infestans in Potato Leaves. Plant Dis. 2017, 101, 1269–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Thiessen, L.D.; Keune, J.A.; Neill, T.M.; Turechek, W.W.; Grove, G.G.; Mahaffee, W.F. Development of a grower-conducted inoculum detection assay for management of grape powdery mildew. Plant Pathol. 2016, 65, 238–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Villari, C.; Mahaffee, W.F.; Mitchell, T.K.; Pedley, K.F.; Pieck, M.L.; Hand, F.P. Early Detection of Airborne Inoculum of Magnaporthe oryzae in Turfgrass Fields Using a Quantitative LAMP Assay. Plant Dis. 2017, 101, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Notomi, T.; Mori, Y.; Tomita, N.; Kanda, H. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP): Principle, features, and future prospects. J. Microbiol. 2015, 53, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Kaneko, H.; Kawana, T.; Fukushima, E.; Suzutani, T. Tolerance of loop-mediated isothermal amplification to a culture medium and biological substances. J. Biochem. Biophys. Methods 2007, 70, 499–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Niessen, L.; Bechtner, J.; Fodil, S.; Taniwaki, M.H.; Vogel, R.F. LAMP-based group specific detection of aflatoxin producers within Aspergillus section Flavi in food raw materials, spices, and dried fruit using neutral red for visible-light signal detection. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018, 266, 241–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Fan, F.; Hahn, M.; Li, G.-Q.; Lin, Y.; Luo, C.-X. Rapid detection of benzimidazole resistance in Botrytis cinerea by loop-mediated isothermal amplification. Phytopathol. Res. 2019, 1, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hu, X.R.; Dai, D.J.; Wang, H.D.; Zhang, C.Q. Rapid on-site evaluation of the development of resistance to quinone outside inhibitors in Botrytis cinerea. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 13861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tomlinson, J.A.; Dickinson, M.J.; Boonham, N. Detection of Botrytis cinerea by loop-mediated isothermal amplification. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2010, 51, 650–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Duan, Y.-B.; Ge, C.-Y.; Zhang, X.-K.; Wang, J.-X.; Zhou, M.-G. Development and Evaluation of a Novel and Rapid Detection Assay for Botrytis cinerea Based on Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e111094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Mehli, L.; Kjellsen, T.D.; Dewey, F.M.; Hietala, A.M. A case study from the interaction of strawberry and Botrytis cinerea highlights the benefits of comonitoring both partners at genomic and mRNA level. New Phytol. 2005, 168, 465–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kong, X.; Qin, W.; Huang, X.; Kong, F.; Schoen, C.D.; Feng, J.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, H. Development and application of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) for detection of Plasmopara viticola. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 28935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Kogovšek, P.; Hodgetts, J.; Hall, J.; Prezelj, N.; Nikolić, P.; Mehle, N.; Lenarčič, R.; Rotter, A.; Dickinson, M.; Boonham, N.; et al. LAMP assay and rapid sample preparation method for on-site detection of flavescence dorée phytoplasma in grapevine. Plant Pathol. 2015, 64, 286–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Subbarao, C.S.; Anchieta, A.; Ochoa, L.; Dhar, N.; Kunjeti, S.G.; Subbarao, K.V.; Klosterman, S.J. Detection of Latent Peronospora effusa Infections in Spinach. Plant Dis. 2018, 102, 1766–1771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Drais, M.I.; Maheshwari, Y.; Selvaraj, V.; Varvaro, L.; Yokomi, R.; Djelouah, K. Development and validation of a loop-mediated isothermal amplification technique (LAMP) for the detection of Spiroplasma citri, the causal agent of citrus stubborn disease. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2019, 155, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Panno, S.; Matić, S.; Tiberini, A.; Caruso, A.G.; Bella, P.; Torta, L.; Stassi, R.; Davino, S. Loop Mediated Isothermal Amplification: Principles and Applications in Plant Virology. Plants 2020, 9, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Lees, A.K.; Roberts, D.M.; Lynott, J.; Sullivan, L.; Brierley, J.L. Real-Time PCR and LAMP Assays for the Detection of Spores of Alternaria solani and Sporangia of Phytophthora infestans to Inform Disease Risk Forecasting. Plant Dis. 2019, 103, 3172–3180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Thiessen, L.D.; Neill, T.M.; Mahaffee, W.F. Development of a quantitative loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay for the field detection of Erysiphe necator. PeerJ 2018, 6, e4639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Droby, S.; Lichter, A. Post-harvest Botrytis infection: Etiology, development and management. In Botrytis: Biology, Pathology and Control; Elad, Y., Williamson, B., Tudzynski, P., Delen, N., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherland, 2007; pp. 349–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Nagamine, K.; Hase, T.; Notomi, T. Accelerated reaction by loop-mediated isothermal amplification using loop primers. Mol. Cell. Probes 2002, 16, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Tomita, N.; Mori, Y.; Kanda, H.; Notomi, T. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) of gene sequences and simple visual detection of products. Nature Protoc. 2008, 3, 877–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Taiz, L.; Zeiger, E.; Møller, I.M.; Murphy, A. Plant Physiology and Development. Available online: http://6e.plantphys.net/index.html# (accessed on 20 October 2020).
  76. Rossi, V.; Caffi, T.; Salinari, F. Helping farmers face the increasing complexity of decision-making for crop protection. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2012, 51, 457–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Pertot, I.; Caffi, T.; Rossi, V.; Mugnai, L.; Hoffmann, C.; Grando, M.S.; Gary, C.; Lafond, D.; Duso, C.; Thiery, D.; et al. A critical review of plant protection tools for reducing pesticide use on grapevine and new perspectives for the implementation of IPM in viticulture. Crop Prot. 2017, 97, 70–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Bisiach, M.; Zerbetto, F.; Cortesi, P. Attività fungicida della miscela cyprodinil+ fludioxonil contro Botrytis cinerea su vite da vino. ATTI Giornate Fitopatol. 1996, 2, 363–368. [Google Scholar]
  79. Corvi, F.; Tullio, V. Un biennio di prove di lotta contro la muffa grigia dell’uva (Botrytis cinerea Pers.) nelle marche (II contributo). Giornate Fitopatol. 1980, 2, 553–560. [Google Scholar]
Plants 09 01538 g001 550
Figure 1. The real-time LAMP assay for Botrytis cinerea using 10-fold serially diluted DNA of B. cinerea (1.0 to 0.001 ng/µL per sample). LAMP amplification curves generated in an ICGENE mini (Cat.No.EBT 801) portable instrument. Amplification curves and sample labels are colored correspondingly. + indicates amplification, and - indicates no amplification; pos is the positive control consisting of B. cinerea DNA as template, and ntc is the control consisting of water as template.
Figure 1. The real-time LAMP assay for Botrytis cinerea using 10-fold serially diluted DNA of B. cinerea (1.0 to 0.001 ng/µL per sample). LAMP amplification curves generated in an ICGENE mini (Cat.No.EBT 801) portable instrument. Amplification curves and sample labels are colored correspondingly. + indicates amplification, and - indicates no amplification; pos is the positive control consisting of B. cinerea DNA as template, and ntc is the control consisting of water as template.
Plants 09 01538 g001
Plants 09 01538 g002 550
Figure 2. Amplification curves obtained with the real-time LAMP assay for Botrytis cinerea using immature berries in bulk samples with different levels of B. cinerea infection (0, 25, 50, 75, and 100%) and an ICGENE mini (Cat.No.EBT 801) portable instrument. Bulk-berry samples contained 4 berries per sample; for example, the 75% infection level contained 3 berries from bunches that had been inoculated with B. cinerea at flowering and 1 berry from bunches that had not been inoculated with B. cinerea at flowering. Amplification curves and sample labels are colored correspondingly. + indicates amplification, and - no amplification; pos is the positive control consisting of B. cinerea DNA as template, and ntc is the negative control consisting of water as template.
Figure 2. Amplification curves obtained with the real-time LAMP assay for Botrytis cinerea using immature berries in bulk samples with different levels of B. cinerea infection (0, 25, 50, 75, and 100%) and an ICGENE mini (Cat.No.EBT 801) portable instrument. Bulk-berry samples contained 4 berries per sample; for example, the 75% infection level contained 3 berries from bunches that had been inoculated with B. cinerea at flowering and 1 berry from bunches that had not been inoculated with B. cinerea at flowering. Amplification curves and sample labels are colored correspondingly. + indicates amplification, and - no amplification; pos is the positive control consisting of B. cinerea DNA as template, and ntc is the negative control consisting of water as template.
Plants 09 01538 g002
Table
Table 1. List of isolates used for specificity tests of the real-time loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay.
Table 1. List of isolates used for specificity tests of the real-time loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay.
Genus and SpeciesIsolate CodeLAMP Result a
Alternaria alternata5-
Alternaria sp.23-
Aspergillus flavus4-
Aspergillus nigerA1-
Botrytis cinerea213T and 351V+
Erysiphe necatorFP b 2017-
Guignardia bidwelliiQ15-
Monilia laxa11-
Penicillium sp.2-
Phomopsis viticolaPho-6-
Plasmopara viticolaFP 2018-
Rhizopus sp.26-
Rhizopus stoloniferMUCL38013-
Sclerotinia sclerotiorum22-
Stemphylium sp.14-
Vitis vinifera -
a + indicates amplified, and - indicates not amplified. b FP: field population and year of collection.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Si Ammour, M.; Castaldo, E.; Fedele, G.; Rossi, V. Use of LAMP for Assessing Botrytis cinerea Colonization of Bunch Trash and Latent Infection of Berries in Grapevines. Plants 2020, 9, 1538. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/plants9111538

AMA Style

Si Ammour M, Castaldo E, Fedele G, Rossi V. Use of LAMP for Assessing Botrytis cinerea Colonization of Bunch Trash and Latent Infection of Berries in Grapevines. Plants. 2020; 9(11):1538. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/plants9111538

Chicago/Turabian Style

Si Ammour, Melissa, Eleonora Castaldo, Giorgia Fedele, and Vittorio Rossi. 2020. "Use of LAMP for Assessing Botrytis cinerea Colonization of Bunch Trash and Latent Infection of Berries in Grapevines" Plants 9, no. 11: 1538. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/plants9111538

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop