| |
| Publication Type:
| Report |
|---|
| Author(s): | Trento, S.;
Elias, S.;
Garay, A.;
Zavala, J. |
|---|
| Author Affiliation: | Oregon State University Seed Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon |
|---|
| Title: | Comparison of endophyte detection in fescue and ryegrass seeds using an immunoblot assay and a microscopic method |
|---|
| Source: | Seed Science and Technology. Vol. 35, No. 1, 2007, p. 65-74. |
|---|
| Publishing Information: | Zurich: International Seed Testing Association |
|---|
| # of Pages: | 10 |
|---|
| Keywords: | TIC Keywords: Endophytic fungi; Drought resistance; Insect resistance; Tissue immunoblot; Comparisons; Acremonium coenophialum; Festuca rubra subsp. rubra; Festuca arundinacea; Lolium perenne; Fungus infection; Analytical methods; Microscopy
|
|---|
| Abstract/Contents: | "Neotyphodium coenophialum is an endophytic fungus that grows symbiotically in the intercellular spaces between seed or plant cells of some cool-season grasses. N. coenophialum can contribute to insect and drought tolerance, although the presence of toxic metabolites produced by the fungus is detrimental if infected forage is used for feed. This study was conducted to compare the precision and efficiency of two methods of endophyte detection, an immunoblot assay and a microscopic method. Three grass species, tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea L.), red fescue (Festuca rubra subsp. rubra) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) were used. One pre-determined seed lot from each species infected with a high (85-100%), medium (40-70%), or low(5-10%) level of endophyte was selected to compare the two methods. Both methods provided comparable results of endophyte detection. The immunoblot results were slightly more consistent within replications than the microscopic method in perennial ryegrass (PRG) and tall fescue (TF) but not in red fescue (RF). The time to complete the test (sample size of 100 seeds) by the microscopic method was four to five hours compared to one and a half to two hours by the immunoblot assay (excluding the incubation time). The cost of the immunoblot assay is slightly higher than the cost of the microscopic method. However, the microscopic method requires a high level of proficiency and experience to detect the endophyte and the hyphae of the fungus can be missed if the technician lacks sufficient expertise. The immunoblot assay requires less training and large number of samples can be examined per day, although there is some subjectivity in interpretation of color development." |
|---|
| Language: | English |
|---|
| References: | 22 |
|---|
| See Also: | Other items relating to: Disasters - Drought |
|---|
| Note: | Pictures, b/w
Figures
Tables
Graphs |
|---|
| ASA/CSSA/SSSA Citation (Crop Science-Like - may be incomplete):
Trento, S., S. Elias, A. Garay, and J. Zavala. 2007. Comparison of endophyte detection in fescue and ryegrass seeds using an immunoblot assay and a microscopic method. Seed Sci. Technol. 35(1):p. 65-74. |
| Fastlink to access this record outside TGIF: https://tic.msu.edu/tgif/flink?recno=135034 |
| If there are problems with this record, send us feedback about record 135034. |
| Choices for finding the above item: |
|---|
| 
MSU catalog number: SB 114 .A1 S4 |
| Request through your local library's inter-library loan service (bring or send a copy of this TGIF record) |
