PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
September 17, 2025Biology0 citationsOpen Access

Droplet Digital PCR Assay for Detection and Quantification of ‘Candidatus Phytoplasma solani’ in Grapevine Samples

View Full Paper
LLL. LandiSMSergio MuroloGRGianfranco Romanazzi

Key Points

  • Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) improved detection sensitivity of candidatus phytoplasma solani by about 10-fold compared to qPCR.
  • Among 66 grapevine samples tested, ddPCR identified candidatus phytoplasma solani in 75% of roots from symptomatic plants, significantly outperforming qPCR.
  • The ddPCR assay successfully quantified candidatus phytoplasma solani even in complex sample matrices like grapevine roots.
  • No significant differences were found in detecting candidatus phytoplasma solani in symptomatic leaf samples between ddPCR and qPCR.

Abstract

‘Candidatus Phytoplasma solani’ is the causal agent of the Bois noir (BN), affecting grapevine worldwide. The complex epidemiology of BN, which involves multiple ‘Ca. P. solani’ host plants and insect vectors, as well as the occurrence of recovery (loss of symptoms on grapevine canopy), makes disease investigations and containment in vineyards difficult. To achieve early detection of ‘Ca. P. solani’, a droplet digital PCR (ddPCR)-based approach and quantitative (q)PCR assay were compared, testing specific primers based on the elongation factor Tu (tuf) gene using SYBR Green chemistry. The regression curve analysis of the ddPCR assay showed good linearity. Compared with the qPCR method, the sensitivity of ddPCR improved about 10-fold. The analysis of grapevine roots spiked with serial dilutions of ‘Ca P. solani’. PCR tuf fragments showed that qPCR was inhibited, while ddPCR was not affected. Testing 66 grapevine samples from 50 grapevine plants, the ddPCR provided superior diagnostic performance compared to qPCR in roots of symptomatic plants (75% detected by ddPCR, 41.6% by qPCR), roots of recovered plants (58.8% detected by ddPCR, 25% by qPCR), and asymptomatic leaf tissues from recovered plants (75% detected by ddPCR, 25% by qPCR). The ddPCR analysis allowed us to detect ‘Ca. P. solani’ on 40% of leaf samples from recovered plants and 20% of roots from asymptomatic plants. No differences among ddPCR and qPCR were found in detecting phytoplasma on symptomatic leaf samples. The ddPCR assay allowed the absolute quantification of ‘Ca. P. solani’ in complex matrices, such as roots, and when low titer of phytoplasma is present.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Landi et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68d4604731b076d99fa5f96bhttps://doi.org/10.3390/biology14091251
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper