Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Top 10 plant pathogenic bacteria in molecular plant pathology

  • John Mansfield
  • , Stephane Genin
  • , Shimpei Magori
  • , Vitaly Citovsky
  • , Malinee Sriariyanum
  • , Pamela Ronald
  • , Max Dow
  • , Valérie Verdier
  • , Steven V. Beer
  • , Marcos A. Machado
  • , Ian Toth
  • , George Salmond
  • , Gary D. Foster
  • Imperial College London
  • UMR 441-2594
  • Stony Brook University
  • University of California at Davis
  • King Mongkut's University of Technology North Bangkok
  • University College Cork
  • Institut de recherche pour le développement
  • Cornell University
  • Instituto Agronômico de Campinas
  • The James Hutton Institute
  • University of Cambridge
  • University of Bristol

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

2103 Scopus citations

Abstract

Many plant bacteriologists, if not all, feel that their particular microbe should appear in any list of the most important bacterial plant pathogens. However, to our knowledge, no such list exists. The aim of this review was to survey all bacterial pathologists with an association with the journal Molecular Plant Pathology and ask them to nominate the bacterial pathogens they would place in a 'Top 10' based on scientific/economic importance. The survey generated 458 votes from the international community, and allowed the construction of a Top 10 bacterial plant pathogen list. The list includes, in rank order: (1) Pseudomonas syringae pathovars; (2) Ralstonia solanacearum; (3) Agrobacterium tumefaciens; (4) Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae; (5) Xanthomonas campestris pathovars; (6) Xanthomonas axonopodis pathovars; (7) Erwinia amylovora; (8) Xylella fastidiosa; (9) Dickeya (dadantii and solani); (10) Pectobacterium carotovorum (and Pectobacterium atrosepticum). Bacteria garnering honourable mentions for just missing out on the Top 10 include Clavibacter michiganensis (michiganensis and sepedonicus), Pseudomonas savastanoi and Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus. This review article presents a short section on each bacterium in the Top 10 list and its importance, with the intention of initiating discussion and debate amongst the plant bacteriology community, as well as laying down a benchmark. It will be interesting to see, in future years, how perceptions change and which bacterial pathogens enter and leave the Top 10.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)614-629
Number of pages16
JournalMolecular Plant Pathology
Volume13
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2012

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Top 10 plant pathogenic bacteria in molecular plant pathology'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this