• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

在最近开发的 SDHI 杀菌剂(如 Adepidyn 和 Solatenol)中,SDH 突变对 的影响。

Impact of SDH Mutations in on Recently Developed SDHI Fungicides Adepidyn and Solatenol.

机构信息

Department of Plant Pathology, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108.

出版信息

Plant Dis. 2021 Oct;105(10):3015-3024. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-12-20-2718-RE. Epub 2021 Nov 5.

DOI:10.1094/PDIS-12-20-2718-RE
PMID:33736470
Abstract

Early blight, caused by , is observed annually in all midwestern potato production areas. The use of foliar fungicides remains a primary management strategy. However, has developed reduced sensitivity or resistance to many single-site fungicides such as quinone outside inhibitor (QoI, FRAC group 11), succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor (SDHI, FRAC group 7), demethylation inhibitor (DMI, FRAC group 3), and anilinopyrimidine (AP, FRAC group 9) fungicides. Boscalid, fluopyram, solatenol, and adepidyn are EPA-registered SDHI fungicides used commercially on a variety of crops, including potato. Five SDH mutations have been characterized previously in that affect the efficacy of boscalid while only one of these mutations has been demonstrated to negatively affect fluopyram efficacy. Conidial germination assays were used to determine if a shift in sensitivity has occurred in these SDHI fungicides. isolates collected prior to the commercial application of SDHI fungicides (baseline) were compared with recently collected isolates (nonbaseline). Greenhouse evaluations were conducted also to evaluate the efficacy of boscalid, fluopyram, solatenol, and adepidyn on isolates possessing individual SDH mutations. Additionally, field trials were conducted to determine the effects of application of these SDHI fungicides on the frequency of SDH mutations. Fluopyram, solatenol, and adepidyn had high intrinsic activity against when compared with boscalid, based on in vitro assays. The application of adepidyn and solatenol resulted in greater early blight control than the application of boscalid and fluopyram in greenhouse experiments. Molecular characterization of isolates collected from the field trials determined that the frequency of the H134R-mutation can increase in response to more recently developed SDHI fungicides. In contrast, the H278R/Y- and H133R-mutations decreased to the point of being nearly absent in these field experiments.

摘要

早疫病由引起,在中西部所有马铃薯产区每年都有发生。使用叶面杀菌剂仍然是主要的管理策略。然而,已经对许多单作用杀菌剂(如醌外抑制剂(QoI,FRAC 组 11)、琥珀酸脱氢酶抑制剂(SDHI,FRAC 组 7)、脱甲基抑制剂(DMI,FRAC 组 3)和苯胺嘧啶(AP,FRAC 组 9))产生了降低的敏感性或抗性。啶氧菌酯、氟吡菌酰胺、咯菌腈和噻呋酰胺是 EPA 注册的 SDHI 杀菌剂,在包括马铃薯在内的多种作物上商业使用。以前已经鉴定出 中的五个 SDH 突变,这些突变影响啶氧菌酯的功效,而只有一个突变被证明会对氟吡菌酰胺的功效产生负面影响。通过分生孢子萌发试验来确定这些 SDHI 杀菌剂的敏感性是否发生了变化。与基线时期(商业应用 SDHI 杀菌剂之前采集的)相比,比较了最近采集的(非基线)分离株。还进行了温室评估,以评估啶氧菌酯、氟吡菌酰胺、咯菌腈和噻呋酰胺对具有单个 SDH 突变的分离株的功效。此外,还进行了田间试验,以确定这些 SDHI 杀菌剂的施用对 SDH 突变频率的影响。与啶氧菌酯相比,氟吡菌酰胺、咯菌腈和噻呋酰胺对具有较高的内在活性,这基于体外试验。在温室试验中,与啶氧菌酯和氟吡菌酰胺相比,施用噻呋酰胺和咯菌腈可更好地控制早疫病。从田间试验中采集的分离株的分子特征确定,H134R 突变的频率可以增加,以响应最近开发的 SDHI 杀菌剂。相比之下,在这些田间试验中,H278R/Y-和 H133R 突变减少到几乎不存在的程度。

相似文献

1
Impact of SDH Mutations in on Recently Developed SDHI Fungicides Adepidyn and Solatenol.在最近开发的 SDHI 杀菌剂(如 Adepidyn 和 Solatenol)中,SDH 突变对 的影响。
Plant Dis. 2021 Oct;105(10):3015-3024. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-12-20-2718-RE. Epub 2021 Nov 5.
2
Molecular characterization and detection of mutations associated with resistance to succinate dehydrogenase-inhibiting fungicides in Alternaria solani.链格孢菌中与琥珀酸脱氢酶抑制剂类杀菌剂抗性相关的突变的分子特征和检测。
Phytopathology. 2014 Jan;104(1):40-9. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-02-13-0041-R.
3
Potential Impact of Fluopyram on the Frequency of the D123E Mutation in Alternaria solani.氟吡菌酰胺对交链格孢菌 D123E 突变频率的潜在影响。
Plant Dis. 2018 Mar;102(3):656-665. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-06-17-0853-RE. Epub 2018 Jan 31.
4
Aggressiveness of Small-Spored spp. and Their Sensitivity to Succinate Dehydrogenase Inhibitor Fungicides.小孢子真菌的侵袭性及其对琥珀酸脱氢酶抑制剂类杀菌剂的敏感性。
Plant Dis. 2022 Jul;106(7):1919-1928. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-10-21-2292-RE. Epub 2022 Jun 14.
5
Mutations in Gene Subunits Confer Different Cross-Resistance Patterns to SDHI Fungicides in Causing Alternaria Leaf Spot of Almond in California.基因突变导致不同的加利福尼亚杏仁叶枯病菌对 SDHI 杀菌剂产生不同的交叉抗性模式。
Plant Dis. 2022 Jul;106(7):1911-1918. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-09-21-1913-RE. Epub 2022 Jun 13.
6
First Report of Boscalid and Penthiopyrad-Resistant Isolates of Alternaria solani Causing Early Blight of Potato in Michigan.密歇根州马铃薯早疫病致病链格孢对啶酰菌胺和戊唑嘧菌胺抗性菌株的首次报道
Plant Dis. 2013 Dec;97(12):1655. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-03-13-0279-PDN.
7
Prevalence and Impact of SDHI Fungicide Resistance in Alternaria solani.链格孢菌中琥珀酸脱氢酶抑制剂类杀菌剂抗性的流行情况及影响
Plant Dis. 2013 Jul;97(7):952-960. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-12-12-1176-RE.
8
Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Mutations Conferring QoI and SDHI Resistance in Alternaria solani Across the United States.美国茄病镰刀菌对 QoI 和 SDHI 类杀菌剂的交互抗性相关突变的时空分布。
Plant Dis. 2018 Feb;102(2):349-358. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-06-17-0852-RE. Epub 2017 Dec 18.
9
Parasitic Fitness of Fungicide-Resistant and -Sensitive Isolates of Alternaria solani.茄腐镰孢菌抗药性和敏感性分离株的寄生适合度。
Plant Dis. 2018 Mar;102(3):666-673. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-08-17-1268-RE. Epub 2018 Jan 31.
10
Occurrence of Mutations in German Isolates and Potential Impact on Boscalid Sensitivity In Vitro, in the Greenhouse, and in the Field.德国分离株突变的发生及其对嘧菌酯体外、温室和田间敏感性的潜在影响。
Plant Dis. 2019 Dec;103(12):3065-3071. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-03-19-0617-RE. Epub 2019 Sep 23.

引用本文的文献

1
Comparison and Analysis of Resistance Differences in from Fungicides with Three Different Mechanisms.三种不同作用机制杀菌剂的抗性差异比较与分析
J Fungi (Basel). 2025 Apr 11;11(4):305. doi: 10.3390/jof11040305.
2
Ascochyta blight in North Dakota field pea: the pathogen complex and its fungicide sensitivity.北达科他州食用豌豆的壳二孢叶枯病:病原菌复合体及其对杀菌剂的敏感性
Front Plant Sci. 2023 Aug 2;14:1165269. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2023.1165269. eCollection 2023.