JOURNAL OF NANJING FORESTRY UNIVERSITY ›› 2006, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (04): 5-9.doi: 10.3969/j.jssn.1000-2006.2006.04.002

Previous Articles     Next Articles

Identification of Bursaphelenchus xylophilus and B. mucronatus by PCR-RFLP Technique

CHEN Feng-mao1,2, YE Jian-ren1*, TANG Jian2, WU Xiao-qin1   

  1. 1. College of Forest Resources and Environment Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China; 2. Anhui Forestry Department, Hefei 230031, China
  • Online:2016-08-18 Published:2016-08-18

Abstract: A ploymerse chain reaction-restriction fragment Length polymorphism (PCRRFLP) analysis was used for discrimination of isolates of Bursaphelenchus xylophilus and B. rnucronatus. The amplication of isolates of B. xylophilus yielded one fragment of approximately 890bp. But that of B. mucronatus was about 930bp. Digestion of amplified products of each nematode isolate with five restriction endonucleases revealed the results as follows.. (1) Dra I digestion of its products of B. xylophilus populations yielded two fragments, 510 and 380bp. But Dra I couldn’t digest ITS products of B. rnucronatus populations. (2) Sal I couldn’t digest the ITS products of all B. zylophilus populations. But it could digest that of B. mucronatus populations to two fragments, which were 720 and 220bp; (3)Digesting production of four B. xylophilus populations by MspI yielded two fragments, 530 and 360 bp, except GZ02 which couldn’t be digested. But B. mucronatus populations yielded three fragments, 340, 290 and 180bp; (4) All populations of B. xylophilus and B. mucronatus could not be digested by Apa I; (5) Digestions of amplified products of B. :rylophilus and B. mucronatus with Xtio I yielded two fragments respectively, 520 and aT0, 5a0 and 400bp. The restriction endonucleases, Dra I and Sal I, could be used for identification of B. xylophilus and B. mucronatus. The results of digestion of B. xylophilus and B. mucronatus were such sharp difference that it was very easy to identify and it was very convenient to be applied, Msp I and Xho I were not fit for identification of B. xylophilus and B. mucronatus; Apa I could not distinguish and identify B. xylophilus and B. mucronatus.

CLC Number: