高级检索
    陈凤毛, 叶建仁, 吴小芹, 谈家金, 黄麟. 松材线虫两种实用分子检测技术[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2011, 33(4): 149-152.
    引用本文: 陈凤毛, 叶建仁, 吴小芹, 谈家金, 黄麟. 松材线虫两种实用分子检测技术[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 2011, 33(4): 149-152.
    CHEN Feng-mao, YE Jian-ren, WU Xiao-qin, TAN Jia-jin, HUANG Lin. Two kinds of applied molecular skills to detect Bursaphelenchus xylophilus[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2011, 33(4): 149-152.
    Citation: CHEN Feng-mao, YE Jian-ren, WU Xiao-qin, TAN Jia-jin, HUANG Lin. Two kinds of applied molecular skills to detect Bursaphelenchus xylophilus[J]. Journal of Beijing Forestry University, 2011, 33(4): 149-152.

    松材线虫两种实用分子检测技术

    Two kinds of applied molecular skills to detect Bursaphelenchus xylophilus

    • 摘要: 为检验已开发的SCAR标记与实时PCR两种分子检测方法鉴定松材线虫的可靠性,本文选用线虫未知种样品7个以及已知种样品3个为实验材料,采用上述两种分子检测方法进行检测,并且对7个线虫未知种样品进行形态鉴定。结果表明:1)运用SCAR标记检测,第2、3、4、7号4个未知种样品与8号松材线虫样品出现了一条清晰、明亮的860 bp特异条带,第1、5、6号样品与9号拟松材线虫、10号大核滑刃线虫均未出现扩增谱带,表明第2、3、4、7号4个待测样品中含有松材线虫,而第1、5、6号3个待测样品中不含有松材线虫;2)运用实时PCR检测,第2、3、4、7号4个样品与8号松材线虫样品表现有明显的阳性扩增信号,其余样品均未出现扩增信号,也无循环阈值(Ct值);3)对7个未知种样品的形态鉴定结果为:第2、4、7号样品为松材线虫样品, 3号样品中除松材线虫外还含有其他线虫,第1、5、6号3个样品不含松材线虫。对于松材线虫的检测,两种分子检测结果与形态鉴定结果完全一致,且两种分子检测方法对松材线虫都具有很强的特异性,都可以在较短时间内对松材线虫进行鉴定。其中SCAR标记检测方法约需2 h,实时PCR检测方法约需1 h。实现了对松材线虫幼虫快速检测目标,检测结果便于判读。

       

      Abstract: In order to determine the reliability of two methods, SCAR marker and real-time PCR, developed for detecting pine wood nematode, seven pine wood isolates and three identified nematode strains (Bursaphelenchus xylophilus, B. mucronatus and Aphelenchoides macronucleatus) were assayed with the two methods. The traditional method of morphological identification was also used to determine the seven isolates samples. Results showed that 1) with the method of SCAR marker, isolates 2, 3, 4 and 7 showed a common specific electrophoretic band of 860 bp, as did by pine wood nematode B. xylophilus, whereas isolates 1, 5 and 6, and B. mucronatus and Aphelenchoides macronucleatus did not produce the specific band. That suggests that isolates 2, 3, 4 and 7 contained B. xylophilus, while isolates 1, 5 and 6 did not. 2) With the method of real-time PCR identification, fluorescent signal was detected from samples prepared from isolate 2, 3, 4, 7 and strain B. xylophilus, on the contrary, the rest isolates showed no signals and cycle threshold (Ct values). 3) With morphological identification, it was revealed that isolate 2, 4 and 7 contained B. xylophilus while isolate 3 contained B. xylophilus as well as other nematodes. However, isolate 1, 5 and 6 did not contain B. xylophilus. Therefore, the two molecular methods showed a consistent result with morphological identification. Moreover, the two methods are highly specific and time-saving. SCAR marker method costs two hours to perform, while real-time PCR method takes only one hour. Both techniques make it possible to determine rapidly existence of juvenile pine wood nematodes with a simple and easily readable result.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回