Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T09:44:13.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

20 - Serodiagnostic Methods for Risk Assessment of Pseudomonas cepacia as a Biocontrol Agent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2010

Heikki M. T. Hokkanen
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki
James M. Lynch
Affiliation:
University of Surrey
Get access

Summary

Introduction

To develop successful biocontrol of plant diseases by the introduction of naturally occurring (see Défago et al., Chapter 12) or genetically engineered (see Dowling et al. Chapter 14) antagonistic pseudomonads, careful research is needed to assess risks. This includes viability and translocation of the microbes in soil ecosystems, transfer of genetic material to and from the indigenous soil microbial communities, effects of introductions on biochemical functions of the soil microflora and so on. The development of detection methods is important, not only for risk assessment of survival or dispersal of biocontrol microorganisms, such as genetically engineered microorganisms (GEMs) in soil, but also to evaluate the efficacy of biocontrol agents against plant diseases.

Pseudomonas cepacia Palleroni & Holmes, was initially described as a phytopathogen (Burkholder, 1950) as well as a saprophyte in soil (Sinsabaugh and Howard, 1975). It has been reported to provide biological control of certain soil-borne diseases, such as Fusarium-wilt of onion (Kawamoto and Lorbeer, 1976), damping-off of radish, Fusarium-wilt of tomato and Verticilliumwilt of eggplant (Homma et al., 1985). This bacterium is also known to produce various antibiotics, such as pyrrolnitrin (Elander et al., 1968; Janisiewicz and Roitman, 1988; Homma et al., 1989) and pseudane derivatives (Homma et al 1989), which are supposed to contribute to disease suppression. On the other hand, P. cepacia is extremely resistant to antimicrobial agents and is able to survive and multiply even in purified waters (Carson et at., 1973). In addition, it is known to be an opportunistic pathogen and has been described as a synonym for P. kingii and P. multivorans, and as aetiological agents of clinical infection (Ederer and Matsen, 1972; Randall, 1980).

Type
Chapter
Information
Biological Control
Benefits and Risks
, pp. 217 - 222
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×