1932

Abstract

Plant diagnostic laboratories (PDLs) are at the heart of land-grant universities (LGUs) and their extension mission to connect citizens with research-based information. Although research and technological advances have led to many modern methods and technologies in plant pathology diagnostics, the pace of adopting those methods into services at PDLs has many complexities we aim to explore in this review. We seek to identify current challenges in plant disease diagnostics, as well as diagnosticians' and administrators'perceptions of PDLs' many roles. Surveys of diagnosticians and administrators were conducted to understand the current climate on these topics. We hope this article reaches researchers developing diagnostic methods with modern and new technologies to foster a better understanding of PDL diagnosticians’ perspective on method implementation. Ultimately, increasing researchers’ awareness of the factors influencing method adoption by PDLs encourages support, collaboration, and partnerships to advance plant diagnostics.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-phyto-020620-102557
2021-08-25
2024-06-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/phyto/59/1/annurev-phyto-020620-102557.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-phyto-020620-102557&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Aldenderfer M, Blashfield R. 1984.. Cluster Analysis Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Arous S, Harmon CL, Capobianco HM, Polston JE. 2018. Comparison of genus-specific primers in RT-PCR for the broad-spectrum detection of viruses in the genus Potyvirus by plant diagnostic laboratories. J. Virol. Methods 258:29–34
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Assoc. Publ. Land-Grant Univ 2012. The Land-Grant Tradition Rep., Assoc. Publ. Land-Grant Univ. Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Aycock R. 1976. The plant disease clinic: a thorn in the flesh, or a challenging responsibility. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 14:165–75
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Babu B, Washburn BK, Ertek TS, Miller SH, Riddle CB et al. 2017. A field based detection method for Rose rosette virus using isothermal probe-based reverse transcription-recombinase polymerase amplification assay. J. Virol. Methods 247:81–90
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Barnes LW. 1994. The role of plant clinics in disease diagnosis and education: a North American perspective. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 32:601–9
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    Bates D, Maechler M, Davis TA, Oehlschlägel J, Riedy J. 2020. Sparse and dense matrix classes and methods. rdrr.io https://rdrr.io/rforge/Matrix/
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Brenes-Arguedas T. 2020. Lab capacity and capability survey Rep., NPDN West Lafayette, IN: http://npdn.org/public/survey_results2019
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Cardwell K, Dennis G, Flannery AR, Fletcher J, Luster D et al. 2018. Principles of diagnostic assay validation for plant pathogens: a basic review of concepts. Plant Health Prog 19:272–78
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Culbreath K, Petti CA. 2015. Balancing enthusiasm for innovative technologies with optimizing value: an approach to adopt new laboratory tests for infectious diseases using bloodstream infections as exemplar. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 2:2ofv075
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Dreaden TJ, Davis JM, Harmon CL, Ploetz RC, Palmateer AJ et al. 2014. Development of multilocus PCR assays for Raffaelea lauricola, causal agent of laurel wilt disease. Plant Dis 98:379–83
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    EPPO 2018. PM 7/76 (5) Use of EPPO Diagnostic Standards. EPPO Bull 48:373–77
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13. 
    Evans-Ruhl G. 1982. Plant disease clinics: past, present, and future. Plant Dis 66:80–86
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Everitt B, Landau S, Leese M, Stahl D 2011. Cluster Analysis New Jersey: Wiley. , 5th ed..
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Greninger AL. 2018. The challenge of diagnostic metagenomics. Expert Rev. Mol. Diagn. 18:605–15
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    Guardabassi L, Damborg P, Stamm I, Kopp PA, Broens EM et al. 2017. Diagnostic microbiology in veterinary dermatology: present and future. Vet. Dermatol. 28:146–e30
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Guescini M, Sisti D, Rocchi MBL, Stocchi L, Stocchi V. 2008. A new real-time PCR method to overcome significant quantitative inaccuracy due to slight amplification inhibition. BMC Bioinform 9:326
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Jurick WM, Harmon CL, Marois J, Wright DL, Lamour K et al. 2007. A comparative analysis of diagnostic protocols for detection of the Asian soybean rust pathogen, Phakopsora pachyrhizi. Plant Health Prog 8:17
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Karuppannan AK, de Castro AMMG, Opriessnig T 2018. Recent advances in veterinary diagnostic virology. Advanced Techniques in Diagnostic Microbiology, Vol. 2: Applications Y-W Tang, CW Stratton 317–44 Cham, Switz: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    Klingeman WE, Chong J-H, Harmon C, Ames L, LeBude AV, Chandran P. 2020. Scale insect records from ornamental plants help to prioritize plant health resource development. Plant Health Prog 21:278–87
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Londoño MA, Harmon CL, Polston JE. 2016. Evaluation of recombinase polymerase amplification for detection of begomoviruses by plant diagnostic clinics. Virol. J. 13:48
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Maechler M, Rousseeuw P, Struyf A, Hubert M, Hornik K. 2019. Cluster: cluster analysis basics and extensions. R Package Version 2.0.1
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Mavrodieva V, Negi S, Picton D, Levy L, Tooley PW et al. 2008. Development and validation of a tissue based panel for the P. ramorum proficiency testing program. Phytopathology 98:S100
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    McDowell GR. 2001. Land-Grant Universities and Extension into the 21st Century Ames, IA: Iowa State Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Munkvold GP. 2009. Seed pathology progress in academia and industry. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 47:285–311
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Murphy BP, Plewa DE, Phillippi E, Bissonnette SM, Tranel PJ. 2017. A quantitative assay for Amaranthus palmeri identification. Pest Manag. Sci. 73:2221–24
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Press CM, Fieland VJ, Creswell T, Bonkowski J, Miles L, Grünwald NJ. 2020. First report of the NA2 clonal lineage of Phytophthora ramorum in Indiana. Plant Dis 104:1875
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Putnam ML, Miller ML. 2007. Rhodococcus fascians in herbaceous perennials. Plant Dis 91:1064–76
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    R Core Team 2017. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna, Austria: R Core Team
    [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Schubert T, Jeyaprakash A, Harmon C 2016. Fundamentals and advances in plant problem diagnostics. Handbook of Florists’ Crops Diseases RJ McGovern, WH Elmer 1–27 Cham, Switz: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Serag A, Ion-Margineanu A, Qureshi H, McMillan R, Saint Martin M-J et al. 2019. Translational AI and deep learning in diagnostic pathology. Front. Med 6:185
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    Serdani M, Curtis M, Miller ML, Kraus J, Putnam ML. 2013. Loop-mediated isothermal amplification and polymerase chain reaction methods for specific and rapid detection of Rhodococcus fascians. Plant Dis 97:517–29
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Skogland LG, Blunt T. 2012. The plant diagnostic lab experience italicAPS Features https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/apsnetfeatures/Pages/diagnostician.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    Smart A, Byrne J, Hammerschmidt R, Snover-Clift KL, Stack JP et al. 2021. Evolving plant diagnostics during a pandemic. Plant Health Prog 22:21–25
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    Stack J, Cardwell K, Hammerschmidt R, Byrne J, Loria R et al. 2006. The National Plant Diagnostic Network. Plant Dis 90:128–36
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Stack JP, Bostock RM, Hammerschmidt R, Jones JB, Luke E 2014. The National Plant Diagnostic Network: partnering to protect plant systems. Plant Dis 98:708–15
    [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    Umemneku Chikere CM, Wilson K, Graziadio S, Vale L, Allen AJ 2019. Diagnostic test evaluation methodology: a systematic review of methods employed to evaluate diagnostic tests in the absence of gold standard—an update. PLOS ONE 14:e0223832
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Ward E, Foster SJ, Fraaije BA, McCartney HA. 2004. Plant pathogen diagnostics: immunological and nucleic acid-based approaches. Ann. Appl. Biol. 145:1–16
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Warnes GR, Bolker B, Bonebakker L, Gentleman R, Huber W et al. 2020. Gplots: various R programming tools for plotting data. rdrr.io https://rdrr.io/cran/gplots/
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Yang A, Juzwik J. 2017. Use of nested and real-time PCR for the detection of Ceratocystis fagacearum in the sapwood of diseased oak species in Minnesota. Plant Dis 101:480–86
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-phyto-020620-102557
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-phyto-020620-102557
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary Data

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error