Phytoplasma

Phytoplasma
Phyllody induced by phytoplasma infection on a coneflower (Echinacea purpurea)
Phyllody induced by phytoplasma infection on a coneflower (Echinacea purpurea)
Scientific classification Edit this classification
Domain: Bacteria
Phylum: Mycoplasmatota
Class: Mollicutes
Order: Acholeplasmatales
Family: Acholeplasmataceae
Genus: Candidatus Phytoplasma
Firrao et al. 2004[1][2]

Phytoplasmas are obligate intracellular parasites of plant phloem tissue and of the insect vectors that are involved in their plant-to-plant transmission. Phytoplasmas were discovered in 1967 by Japanese scientists who termed them mycoplasma-like organisms.[3] Since their discovery, phytoplasmas have resisted all attempts at in vitro culture in any cell-free medium; routine cultivation in an artificial medium thus remains a major challenge. Phytoplasmas are characterized by the lack of a cell wall, a pleiomorphic or filamentous shape, a diameter normally less than 1 μm, and a very small genome.

Phytoplasmas are pathogens of agriculturally important plants, including coconut, sugarcane, sandalwood, and cannabis, as well as horticultural crops like sweet cherry, peaches, and nectarines. They cause a wide variety of symptoms ranging from mild yellowing, small fruit, and reduced sugar content to death. Phytoplasmas are most prevalent in tropical and subtropical regions. They are transmitted from plant to plant by vectors (normally sap-sucking insects such as leafhoppers) in which they both survive and replicate.

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference LPSN was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference genus04 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Doi, Yoji; Teranaka, Michiaki; Yora, Kiyoshi; Asuyama, Hidefumi (1967). "Mycoplasma- or PLT Group-like Microorganisms Found in the Phloem Elements of Plants Infected with Mulberry Dwarf, Potato Witches' Broom, Aster Yellows, or Paulownia Witches' Broom". Annals of the Phytopathological Society of Japan (in Japanese). 33 (4): 259–266. doi:10.3186/jjphytopath.33.259.