03027naa a2200277 a 450000100080000000500110000800800410001902200140006002400270007410000160010124501150011726000090023250010480024152011810128965300260247065300260249665300120252270000150253470000180254970000130256770000190258070000140259970000130261370000180262677301050264410619952021-04-27       2021    bl uuuu     u00u1 u    #d  a0032-08627 a10.1111/ppa.133412DOI1 aSIMEONE, M.  aDetection of citrus psorosis virus by RT‐qPCR validated by diagnostic parameters.h[electronic resource]  c2021  aArticle history: Received, 8 September 2020; Accepted, 28 December 2020, First published, 18 January 2021. This work was supported by Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica (ANPCYT) PICT 2014‐1007 and PICT Start UP 2014‐3762, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) Proyectos de Investigación de Unidades Ejecutoras?(IBBM), Universidad Nacional de La Plata (UNLP) X‐692, and Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA) (PNFRU‐1172; 11721; ERIOS‐630081, PD I081 and RIST I091). M.S. was supported by ANPCyT and CONICET. M.L.G. belongs to CONICET and Departamento de Ciencias Biológicas, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, UNLP. We thank Beatriz Stein and Julia Figueroa from the Estación Experimental Agroindustrial Obispo Colombres (EEOC), Tucumán, for providing samples from their collection and Magalí Gabrielli for technical assistance in the total RNA extractions. We thank Pedro Moreno for helpful discussion and critical reading of the manuscript.  aABSTRACT. Citrus psorosis virus (CPsV) is the causal agent of psorosis, an important disease of citrus. Sanitary and certification programmes helped reduce disease damage caused by psorosis and other graft‐transmissible diseases in many citrus‐growing regions. For quarantine and certification programmes, most of these diseases are currently diagnosed using biological indexing (BI) on sensitive indicator plants. In the case of citrus psorosis, CPsV can be detected by molecular methods such as quantitative reverse transcription PCR (RT‐qPCR), which is cheaper and faster than BI, but sensitivity, reliability, and reproducibility of both procedures have not been compared so far. In this work, 128 plants from Argentina and Uruguay were analysed using BI and CPsV detection by the RT‐qPCR assay. Almost perfect agreement between both diagnostic procedures and sensitivity, specificity, and estimated likelihood ratios indicate that RT‐qPCR is equivalent to BI for citrus psorosis diagnosis, thus providing confidence in the quick diagnostic procedure to monitor the sanitary status of citrus trees. © 2021 British Society for Plant Pathology  aCitrus psorosis virus  aDiagnostic parameters  aRT-qPCR1 aGÓMEZ, C.1 aBERTALMIO, A.1 aRUIZ, E.1 aHAUTEVILLE, C.1 aGODOY, L.1 aTITO, B.1 aGARCÍA, M.L.  tPlant Pathology, May 2021, Volume 70, Issue 4, Pages 980-986. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.13341