Elsevier

Talanta

Volume 251, 1 January 2023, 123808
Talanta

Plant pathogenicity and associated/related detection systems. A review

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.talanta.2022.123808Get rights and content

Highlights

  • A review of the recent advances (2012–2022) in plant pathogen detection systems.

  • Limitations of the gold standard techniques have led to emerging recent advances for on-field plant disease detection.

  • Recent advances have been categorized into direct and indirect methods.

  • Advancements in various types of biosensors– electrochemical, optical, and mass-based biosensors for plant disease detection.

  • Future challenges and prospects of biosensors for on-site detection of plant diseases are proposed.

Abstract

There is an increasing demand for the development of various tools for diagnosis and control of plant infections. The early diagnosis of plant disease serves as a vital element to improve crop productivity and meet demands of the ever-growing world population. The traditional methods of plant disease detection are time consuming, laborious and require 3–5 days to estimate the disease incidence. In this review, we focus on the advances in the detection techniques, mainly the miniaturized systems that has developed in the last decade. The analytical techniques for plant pathogen detection have been classified as direct and indirect detection methods. The direct methods involving laboratory techniques such as polymerase chain reaction, enzyme-linked immune-sorbent assays, and immunofluorescence and their recent advances have been discussed. Similarly, indirect methods which rely on sensing the plant stress indicators to detect plant diseases have been categorized and reviewed. In the last decade, various detection platforms with high sensitivity and selectivity have been developed and commercialized into handheld devices and products for on-field plant disease detection. This review focusses on the transition from the gold standard techniques to the advanced on-field biosensors to detect plant diseases with higher accuracy, cost-effective and making timely diagnosis possible. A growing trend for pathogen detection based on biosensors has been highlighted and further categorized into electrochemical, optical, and mass-based sensors. These innovative advancements in plant pathogen detection systems help to make the agricultural sector more safe, reliable, and sustainable for the ever-growing population.

Introduction

Pathogens are microorganisms (bacteria, fungus, viruses, etc.) that cause diseases. Pathogens in the agricultural sector have a negative effect on food quality and safety. The yield loss range at a global level for five major crops are: wheat 10.1–28.1%, rice 24.6–40.9%, maize 19.5–41.1%, potato 8.1–21.0% and soybean 11.0–32.4% ranges that crop pathogens and pests reduce the yield and quality of agricultural production [1]. The various plant pathogens arising from different sources along with types of infection caused by them have been listed in Table 1. The pathogens listed in the table are examples of most prevalent disease-causing causing microbes which are categorized based on their source of infection into soil, airborne air borne. Soil serves as an important habitat for the growth of soil borne pathogens wherein extrinsic as well as intrinsic parameters play an important role such as soil pH, soil biota, temperature, moisture, and organic contaminants. Most soil borne pathogens rot the underground tissues and vascular wilts and a few of them are also known to cause foliar diseases. For example, Lettuce anthracnose infects the lettuce leaves as the fungus travels up to the leaves in the plant [2]. Water-borne pathogens are the disease causing agents which are being introduced into the agricultural lands by irrigation. Air-borne pathogens travel through air. In particular, the diseases which have attacked the leaves of plants spread by wind or droplets of rain or during irrigation [3]. More information on various sources of pathogens can be found in the literature [4,5]. There are different screening techniques have been developed over the years for various diseases caused by pathogens. From the simplest detection of symptoms appearing on leaves to more microscopic observation, the nucleic acid detection techniques as illustrated in Fig. 1.

The standard analytical techniques for detection of plant pathogens have been categorized into two types: The direct and the indirect methods of detection. The direct methods include: Polymerase chain reaction [6], immuno-assays (JR. 1995) and the culture colony counting. The indirect methods include thermography [7], hyper spectral imaging, gas chromatography and fluorescence imaging. To maximize productivity and minimize the agricultural losses due to pathogens, advanced plant disease detection and early screening serves to be an important aspect of plant sciences. There are various modes of infection spread which occur in agricultural lands. The different modes are through insects, wind, and water-soil transmissions as illustrated in Fig. 2. In last decade, various types of biosensors were reported for detecting plant diseases properties of those biosensors include their ease of use, high specificity, sensitivity, lower limits of detection, and multi-array capability. In this review, we present a thorough review covering the various types of plant pathogens, its sampling procedures and a detailed discussion on types of biosensors used for the detection of diseases on field.

Section snippets

Methods for plant disease detection

Various plant disease detection strategies have been implemented to detect the diseases and symptoms in plants to implement control strategies as early as possible. The traditional methods of plant disease detection are: visual/microscopic examination, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and Enzyme Linked ImmunoSorbent Assays (ELISA). Bacteria, fungi, protists and other microbes can usually be observed using a light microscope. Microbiological characteristics can help us to identify the pathogen of

Biosensors for plant pathogen detection

Biosensors generally consist of a physicochemical transducer and a molecular recognition element, known as a receptor molecule which interacts with specific target analytes [37]. Upon interaction of receptors with the target analytes, a bio-recognition information is produced which is converted into an electrochemical, electrical, optical signal, etc. by the transducer. Fig. 4. Illustrates the principle of biosensor with different biorecognition elements used. Khater et al. has provided a

Conclusion and future outlook

Early detection of plant disease is a crucial strategy to minimize the losses. As mentioned in this review, indirect methods have shown that these techniques can be efficient in early detection of symptoms, but also in cases where plants do not yet show symptoms. Implementation of such methods in large scale applications such as in identification of early stages of infections in large canopies and farms, have helped in implementing controls strategies in earliest possible stages to reduce crop

Funding

  • -

    This work was financially supported by the grant from India–Trento Program for Advanced Research (ITPAR – IV) Department of Science and Technology (DST) Government of India, in the field of agricultural research.

  • -

    DST, Government of India for the INSPIRE Fellowship to the first author

  • -

    European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program for the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 813680 (AQUASENSE)

Ethics approval/declarations

This is not applicable.

Consent to participate

This paper does not involve humans or animals, therefore Ethical approval consent is not applicable.

Consent for publication

This study doesn't contain any data from any individual person, therefore consent for publication is not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable for this study.

Authors contribution

Rhea Patel and Bappa Mitra did the literature search, data analysis, and drafted the manuscript.; Madhuri Vinchurkar, Rajul Patkar, Andrea Adami, Flavio Giacomozzi, Leandro Lorenzelli, Maryam Shojaei Baghini critically revised the work.; All authors conceptualized the review paper and outline was made based on every author's inputs and experience.; All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript.; All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Bappa Mitra reports financial support was provided by European Union's Horizon 2020. Rhea Patel reports financial support was provided by INSPIRE, DST, India. Rhea Patel, Madhuri Vinchurkar, Rajul Patkar, Maryam Shojaei Baghini, Andrea Adami, Flavio Giacomozzi, Leandro Lorenzelli reports financial support was provided by Department of Science and Technology,

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by the grant from India–Trento Program for Advanced Research (ITPAR – IV) Department of Science and Technology (DST) Government of India, in the field of agricultural research. Authors would also like to acknowledge DST, Government of India for the INSPIRE Fellowship to the first author and the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme for the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 813680 (AQUASENSE).

References (56)

  • M. Khater et al.

    Biosensors for plant pathogen detection

    Biosens. Bioelectron.

    (2017)
  • P. Mehrotra

    Biosensors and their applications – a review

    J. Oral Biol. Craniofac Res.

    (2016)
  • J. Ding et al.

    Recent advances in potentiometric biosensors

    TrAC, Trends Anal. Chem.

    (2020)
  • P. Cheng et al.

    A novel regeneration-free E. coli O157:H7 amperometric immunosensor based on functionalised four-layer magnetic nanoparticles

    Sensor. Actuator. B Chem.

    (2014)
  • K. Stepurska et al.

    Development of novel enzyme potentiometric biosensor based on pH-sensitive field-effect transistors for aflatoxin B1 analysis in real samples

    Talanta

    (2015)
  • G. Silva et al.

    Impedimetric sensor for toxigenic Penicillium sclerotigenum detection in yam based on magnetite-poly(allylamine hydrochloride) composite

    J. Colloid Interface Sci.

    (2013)
  • M. Ray et al.

    Fungal disease detection in plants: traditional assays, novel diagnostic techniques and biosensors

    Biosens. Bioelectron.

    (2017)
  • S. Savary et al.

    The global burden of pathogens and pests on major food crops

    Nat. Ecol. Evolut.

    (2019)
  • A. Jain et al.

    A review of plant leaf fungal diseases and its environment speciation

    Bioengineered

    (2019)
  • G. Lucas et al.

    Causes of Plant Diseases. Introduction To Plant Diseases

    (1992)
  • R. Ray

    Plant pathology and plant pathogens

    Plant Pathol.

    (2021)
  • B. Fraaije et al.

    PCR-Based assays to assess wheat varietal resistance to blotch (septoria tritici and stagonospora nodorum) and rust (puccinia striiformis and puccinia recondita) diseases

    Eur. J. Plant Pathol.

    (2001)
  • A. Mahlein et al.

    Recent advances in sensing plant diseases for precision crop protection

    Eur. J. Plant Pathol.

    (2012)
  • B. Lievens et al.

    A robust identification and detection assay to discriminate the cucumber pathogens Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum and f. sp. radicis-cucumerinum

    Environ. Microbiol.

    (2007)
  • M. Kabir et al.

    Development of PCR-based detection system for soft rot pectobacteriaceae pathogens using molecular signatures

    Microorganisms

    (2020)
  • S. Wei et al.

    Development of a single-tube nested PCR-lateral flow biosensor assay for rapid and accurate detection of Alternaria panax Whetz

    PLoS One

    (2018)
  • C. Koo et al.

    Development of a real-time microchip PCR system for portable plant disease diagnosis

    PLoS One

    (2013)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text