Current Issues on Multidisciplinary Microscopy Research and Education

72

Microscopy Techniques Applied to the Study of Phytoplasma

Diseases: Traditional and Innovative Methods
Rita Musetti *,1 and Maria Augusta Favali2
1
2

Dipartimento di Biologia Applicata alla Difesa delle Piante, Universit di Udine, via delle Scienze, 208,
33100 Udine, Italy
Dipartimento di Biologia Evolutiva e Funzionale, Universit di Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze 11/A,
43100 Parma, Italy

This review describes the main microscopy techniques used for studying phytoplasma diseases, comparing classical methods with the most recent progress in this field. The most useful methods both for the diagnosis and describing the relationship between the pathogen and the host plants, mainly the new approaches and perspectives regarding the application of cytochemical methods for understanding the phytoplasma pathogenesis process, are considered.
Keywords autoradiography, cryoultramicrotomy, fluorescence microscopy, image analysis, immunogold
labelling, light microscopy, phytoplasmas, plant diseases, scanning electron microscopy, transmission
electron microscopy, x-ray microanalysis

1. Introduction
Before dealing with the description of the specific microscopy methods, it is necessary to supply some
general information on phytoplasma diseases, since there already exists an extensive literature on this
subject.
Diseases caused by phytoplasmas occur worldwide in many economically important crops: there are
more than 300 distinct diseases associated with these pathogens.
Phytoplasmas are wall-less prokaryotes, pleomorphic in shape, belonging to the Class Mollicutes; they
are bound by a trilamined unit membrane, contain ribosome and DNA and range up 1.2 in diameter.
Their shape may be helical, filamentous, beaded or simply spheroid. They are obligate parasites, uncultivable in vitro therefore grow and reproduce in the phloem of the host plants and in the vector insects.
The association of these pathogens with plants exhibiting yellows symptoms was demonstrated by Doi
et al., [1] using Transmission Electron Microscope (TEM). Since then, many authors have used light and
electron microscopy to reveal phytoplasmas in the phloem tissues and to study cytological interactions
between these pathogens and their hosts [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8].
But, because of their pleomorphism, it was impossible to distinguish and classify the different phytoplasmas by means of the traditional morphological techniques [9]. In recent times, immunological techniques applied to light and electron microscopy enable the different phytoplasmas to be characterized in
situ [10].
The aim of this paper is to indicate the most important microscopy techniques and the new approaches
used in the diagnosis and in the studying of the cellular relationships between phytoplasmas and host
plants.

2. Light Microscopy
Several staining methods, applied to serial semithin sections of resin-embedded materials, were used to
localize and identify phytoplasmas in the infected tissues by means light microscopy. Most of these
methods constitute the first steps towards understanding the possible association between phytoplasmas
*

Corresponding author: e-mail: rita.musetti@pldef.uniud.it

FORMATEX 2004

Current Issues on Multidisciplinary Microscopy Research and Education

73

and the disease symptoms in the plants. Moreover, they are fast and less expensive than electron microscopy techniques. As sieve tubes of phloem have not nucleus, it is possible to use specific stains to evidentiate phytoplasma nucleic acid.
Giannotti [11] and Karta et al., [12] reported respectively the application of methyl green and Feulgen
staining procedure for the detection of phytoplasmas in the tissues of the host plants.
Dienesstain was first developed as a specific stain for animal mycoplasma colonies [13]. Deeley et al.,
[14] applied this method to hand cut or freezing-microtome sections of stem tissues of plants infected by
phytoplasmas and other pathogens. Phloem tissues of stems infected by phytoplasmas stained dark blue
(Fig. 1), while xylem was turquoise and cortex light blue. The stain was specific for phytoplasma
diseases and gave no reaction in healthy tissues and in samples infected by other pathogens.
The procedure is quick, of diagnostic value, and can be used as a preliminary method to detect phytoplasmas in infected plants [15].
Toluidine blue stains of semithin sections [16, 17, 18] or thionin/acridine orange [19] are also reported.
The light microscopic detection of phytoplasmas in semithin sections could be a good method only in
cells containing high concentrations of the pathogen.
Light microscope techniques also contributed to the study of host plant-phytoplasma interactions.
Specific staining methods were reported to detect histological changes in plant tissues infected with
phytoplasmas [2, 20].
The alterations of cell walls and the localization of several compounds such as suberin, lignin and polyphenols in plum and apple plants infected with European Stone Fruit Yellows and Apple Proliferation
phytoplasmas respectively, were investigated, revealing an increase of these substances in infected plants
compared to the healthy ones [8].
Histological root changes observed in Fraxinus americana infected with Ash Yellows Phytoplasma
indicated that root damage precedes other symptoms and triggers branch dieback [21].

1
Fig. 1 Hand cut sections of healthy (a) and phytoplasma-infected (b) Catharanthus roseus L. stems
stained with Dienesstain. Arrows show the blue spots indicating phytoplasma presence (bars= 125 ).

3. Fluorescence Microscopy

FORMATEX 2004

74

Rita Musetti et al.: Microscopy Techniques Applied to the Study of Phytoplasma Diseases...

3.1 DAPI Stain

Fluorescence in plant tissues could be due to natural autofluorescence of the cell walls (i.e. xylem cell
walls) or could be caused by the accumulations of substances (i.e. phenols) produced in response to
different types of diseases or stress. Therefore, autofluorescence cannot be used as a diagnostic method
for phytoplasma diseases.
Fluorescence obtained using specific fluorochromes represents a very useful and quick technique for the
detection of phytoplasmas in the infected tissues.
Simple methods were developed for confirming the presence of phytoplasmas in hand cut or freezingmicrotome sections of infected tissues using two DNA-binding fluorochromes, 4-6-diamidino-2phenylindole (DAPI) or the benzimidole derivate Hoechst 33258 and fluorescence microscope. DAPI is
the stain most used for phytoplasma diagnosis [22, 23] both in herbaceous [24] and woody host plants
[25, 26, 5, 8]. Following DAPI staining, phloem cells of infected material show a diffuse fluorescence,
brighter that the one typical of the nuclei of parenchymal cells. These very bright spots in the phloem
tissues due to phytoplasmas are not visible in healthy tissues (Fig. 2).
A rapid compression technique developed for unfixed soft tissues, such as leaf midribs and dodder apices
has also been reported [27, 28].
DAPI staining techniques permit a rapid and precise localization of phytoplasmas both in fresh and dried
samples [28], and not only in leaf or stem tissues, but also in roots and petioles [29].
3.2 Immunofluorescence
The DAPI technique is rapid but not specific for the different phytoplasmas. Serological techniques applied to fluorescence microscopy give a more sensitive and specific diagnosis. The development of
probes such as poly- and monoclonal antibodies advanced the art of diagnosing phytoplasma diseases
diagnostics

Fig. 2 DAPI staining of hand cut sections of healthy (a) and phytoplasma-infected (b) Catharanthus
roseus L. stems. In b, arrow indicates the fluorescent bright spots, visible at phloem level, diagnostic for
the presence of phytoplasmas (bars= 192 ).

[30, 31]. Two ways of performing the immunofluorescence test have been used: the direct and the
indirect methods [32]. In the first method the antibody produced against the antigen to be detect is
conjugated with a fluorochrome, such as fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC) and stained by exposing test
specimens to a solution of the labelled antibody. The indirect method is based on the capability of

FORMATEX 2004

Current Issues on Multidisciplinary Microscopy Research and Education

75

antibodies to serve as immunogens: for example, if a goat is injected with rabbit immunoglobulins, goat
antibody against rabbit immunoglobulins can be produced and conjugated with a fluorochrome. The
stain is performed in two steps. First, the test specimens are incubated in a solution of unlabeled rabbit
antibody produced against the protein to be detect; second, the sites where the rabbit antibodies have
attached to the protein are labelled by specific binding with goat fluorescent antibody prepared against
rabbit immunoglobulins. The reaction antigen/antibody is specific, and, with the relatively short time
required to prepare and observe the specimen, make the immunofluorescence technique an ideal
diagnostic tool for plant diseases associated with phytoplasmas. On the other hand, it is very difficult to
produce specific antisera against these pathogens, because phytoplasmas are not cultivable in vitro and
only partially purified antigens can be obtained from infected host plants [33]..

4. Transmission electron microscopy (TEM)

Because they are small and without a defined shape, to observe phytoplasmas directly the magnification
and resolution of an electron microscope is required (Figs. 3 and 4).
4.1 Thin section technique
The most basic procedure is the preparation of thin sections of resin-embedded plant materials and their
observation by TEM.

Figs. 3 and 4 Phytoplasmas (arrows) in the phloem cells of Catharanthus roseus L. (Fig. 3) and apple
(Fig. 4). Note that phytoplasmas are more numerous in C. roseus (the typical test plant for these pathogens) than in apple tissues. In fruit and forest trees phytoplasmas are not uniformly distributed in the
phloem of the plants. (Fig. 3: bar = 0.5 ; Fig. 4: bar = 0.65 ).

Using this technique, Doi and co-workers [1], were the first to find and describe phytoplasmas associated
with the yellows diseases, showing their typical localization in the phloem of the host plants. Since then,
the observations of thin sectioned resin-embedded samples enabled, not only the diagnosis, but also the
study of plant-phytoplasma interactions [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8].

FORMATEX 2004

76

Rita Musetti et al.: Microscopy Techniques Applied to the Study of Phytoplasma Diseases...

Many authors described ultrastructural modifications induced by phytoplasmas in the host tissues [4, 5,
6, 8]. These studies demonstrated that the effects caused by the pathogen on the plant tissues can be of
different depending on the type of host and the phytoplasma [5, 34]. For example, in the parasitic plant
Cuscuta campestris the pathogenic effect of Apple Proliferation phytoplasma results stronger than Clover Phyllody phytoplasma: in fact Apple Proliferation phytoplasmas cause so serious damages to the cell
organelles that their ultrastructure is no longer recognizable.
In woody infected plants, the cell walls of the phloem results particularly thickened and distorted, and
electron-opaque phenolic material is localized in the vacuoles; the presence of phytoplasmas is not easy
to demonstrate by TEM because the sieve tubes have often collapsed or are filled with callose [35, 8,
36].
4.2 Immuno-sorbent electron microscopy (ISEM)
Immunological and other works on detection and identification of phytoplasmas have been extensively
reviewed [37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 9, 42]. As these prokaryotes are morphologically very variable and featureless, the recognition on EM grids of phytoplasmas extracted and purified in vitro by negative or positive
staining might result very problematical.
Derrick and Brlansky [43] developed an ISEM assay for identification of plant viruses and cultivable
mycoplasmas. Sinha and Benhamou [44], using the specific antiserum, trapped on the EM grids and
decored, partially purified extracts of Aster Yellows phytoplasma from infected aster plants. The
method was specific and sensitive, but it was time consuming to obtain purified phytoplasma preparations required to prepare specific antisera. But, once the serum has been produced, the antigens could be
detected within few hours in partially purified preparations.
The recognition of phytoplasmas by these techniques rested on comparison with control and ELISA
results, because individual phytoplasma bodies could not be identified among the back-ground of host
derived membrane debris. A difficulty of immunological studies of phytoplasmas is that monoclonal
antibodies are not easily produced, and polyclonal antibody preparations initially could contain significant levels of antibodies directed against the host.
Recently, polyclonal and monoclonal antibodies against phytoplasmas become to be available [31, 45,
46, 33] and protocols and new techniques for the diagnosis and characterization of these prokaryotes
have been proposed.
Vera and Milne [42] proposed a rapid and specific protocol for immunogold lebelling and negatively
staining phytoplasmas from crude preparations, that allows phytoplasmas to be easily identified and
distinguished from others that are serologically different. The proposed method is useful in diagnostics,
in monitoring the steps of phytoplasma purification, and in the study of phytoplasma morphology and
multiplication. The authors also suggested that the procedures of extraction and staining did not greatly
alter phytoplasma morphology and artifacts did not occur.
4.3 Immuno-electron microscopy (IEM) of thin sections
Immunogold labelling of thin sectioned material is applied successfully in the detection of phytoplasmas
both in the phloem of the host plants [47, 40, 9, 10] and in the insect vectors [48].
Uses of pre-embedding and post-embedding techniques were reported [9]. The first better evidentiated
outer membrane antigens of microorganisms, the second could identify both internal and external antigenic sites. Using both techniques, phytoplasmas present specific labelling on the periphery of the cell,
showing that phytoplasma antigens are exposed on the surface of these prokaryotes (Figs. 5 and 6).
Musetti et al. [10] compared two post-embedding techniques to determine which is more suitable for
plant material affected by phytoplasmas. In the first protocol, according to Berryman and Rodewald [49]
and modified by Milne et al. [41], a formaldehyde-glutaraldehyde mixture as fixative and LR Gold resin
for embedding were used. According to the second one, diluted solution (0.2%) of glutaraldehyde alone
was used, and LR White resin was employed. Ultrathin sections were incubated with primary specific

FORMATEX 2004

Current Issues on Multidisciplinary Microscopy Research and Education

77

monoclonal antibody, then with secondary antimouse antibody coated with colloidal gold particles of
different size (5, 10, 15 nm) (Figs. 5 and 6). Both fixation and embedding procedures maintained the
typical phytoplasma ultrastructure well enough; the choice of gold particle size together with antibody
concentrations resulted to be important for the intensity of the labelling.
Immunolabelling techniques applied to thin sections of infected plant tissues were essential for
distinguishing between phytoplasmas and host organelles, when the former are few and the tissues
necrotic. Interesting applications could be the elucidation of phytoplasma biodiversity and the study of
infections caused by two or more different phytoplasmas.

Figs. 5 and 6 Phytoplasmas in phloem tissues of Catharanthus roseus L. labelled by immunogold technique. Primary monoclonal antibody was diluted 25 g/ml, the secondary gold conjugated antibody 1:20. Using gold 15 nm in
diameter, few particles are visible on phytoplasma membrane (Fig. 6), using 5 nm gold, particles are well distributed
over the periphery of the phytoplasmas (Fig. 5). (Fig. 5: bar = 0.25 ; Fig. 6: bar = 0.15 )

4.4 Cryo-ultramicrotomy
Thin sections of specimens prepared by rapid freezing methods (especially high-pressure freezing) give a
more accurate picture of the overall structure of the sample, as ultrastructure preservation is superior due
to the omission of conventional dehydration and embedding methods. As chemical fixation is avoided,
cryosections are very suitable also for immunolabelling applications [50].
DAgostino [51] applied cryo-ultramicrotomy to the study of the structure of Primula Yellows
phytoplasmas in Catharanthus roseus L. leaf tissues, comparing the results with those obtained with
conventional Epon-Araldite embedding method. According to the author, phytoplasma structural details
were better preserved in cryosections: phytoplasmas were referred to two predominant morphotypes,
rounded and filamentous, and the high polymorphism of phytoplasmas observed in epoxy sections was
probably due to artifacts associated with this technique.

5. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)

Observations of phytoplasma infected material by SEM were also reported [52, 53]: they are described as
short, branched, filamentous forms in sieve elements of infected plants. Marcone and Ragozzino [54]
hypothesize that these morphological variations could be various development stages of phytoplasmas.

6. Cytochemical methods
Cytochemical methods were much used in cytology, but their application to plant diseases was not widespread, because some were difficult and time consuming. However, cytochemical techniques can result

FORMATEX 2004

78

Rita Musetti et al.: Microscopy Techniques Applied to the Study of Phytoplasma Diseases...

very important to detect chemical nature of cellular structures, both normal and pathogen-induced, or to
identify enzymatic activities in the infected cell.
6.1 High resolution autoradiography
High resolution autoradiography was very used in virology to localize viral nucleic acids in the cells, by
means incorporation of Uridine- 3H or Thymidine -3H.
Favali and Lombardo [55] applied this technique to phytoplasmas affecting clover plants, demonstrating
that phytoplasmas were capable of active multiplication in the host.
The technique consists in the introduction of a soluble radioactively-labeled substance into the sample.
The tissue is then washed, fixed, embedded and sectioned and the sections are coated in photographic
emulsion and stored in the dark. During this time, some of the electrons emitted by the radioactive decay
of the label strike silver crystals in the emulsion and convert them in a latent image, sensitive to
reduction to silver by the developer. After appropriate exposure, the emulsion is developed and fixed
maintaining the sections in place. When the sections are observed under the electron microscope, silver
grains indicate the sites in the sections where the label has been incorporated.

Figs. 7 and 8 Phytoplasmas in phloem cells of white clover (Trifolium repens L.), after 3 hours labelling with
thymidine-3H. Note the silver grains on the dividing phytoplasmas (arrows). (Fig. 7: bar = 0.6 ; Fig. 8: bar =0.47 )

6.2 Potassium pyrantimonate precipitation and cerium chloride labelling

For several years, the development of suitable and precise diagnostic techniques was the most urgent
problem to be solved.
More recently, the study of physiology of phytoplasma diseases became topical [56, 7, 8], because some
products of the plant-pathogen interaction could be putative inhibitors of molecular primers used for
detecting phytoplasmas in infected material [57].
Potassium pyrantimonate precipitation for detection of bivalent ions as Ca 2+, and cerium chloride labelling techniques for the detection of H2O2, were recently applied to phytoplasma infected tissues with the
aim of studying the movement and accumulation of ions implicated in cell metabolism and in the defence-related mechanisms in the diseased plants [58, 36]. Results obtained demonstrated the involvement
of these molecules in the infection processes, particularly in the recovery phenomenon.

7. X-ray microanalysis and electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS)

FORMATEX 2004

Current Issues on Multidisciplinary Microscopy Research and Education

79

X-ray microanalysis and EELS are also used to analyse the elemental composition and distribution of
mass within the cells. Both methods were found to be particularly suitable for the detection of deposits of
homogeneous composition (i.e. dense cellular inclusions) in infected plant tissues.
Regarding phytoplasma diseases, x-ray microanalysis is particularly useful for studying of progression of
symptoms in the diseased plant, i.e. correlate leaf decoloration with the presence of specific elements,
such as Si, in the infected tissues [59].

8. New approaches and technologies

Recently, the potential of microscopy techniques as investigative tools in plant cell biology has increased, because of development of confocal laser scanning and video microscopy, computerized image
processing and analysis, and an increasing array of fluorescent probes that can be applied to living cells.
In addition, transgenic plants and cells can be generated in which specific components are fluorescently
labelled without any invasive experimental manipulation.
The application of such techniques to plant-microbe interactions has produced interesting results [60,
61], and likewise in the study of plant-virus relationships [62] but nothing has been reported about phytoplasmas.
Atomic force microscopy was applied, for the first time, to investigate with a molecular resolution scale,
a partially purified extract of unfixed phytoplasma cells from C. roseus (Ciancio, personal communication), providing a new perspective in the study of the biology of these prokaryotes under conditions very
close to their native cell environment.

References
[1] Y. Doi, M. Teranaka, K. Yora, H. Asuyama: Ann. Phytopath. Soc. Japan 33 (1967), pp. 259-266.
[2] E.J. Braun, W.A. Sinclair: Phytopath. 66 (1976), pp. 598-607.
[3] M.A. Favali, R. Musetti, A. Ragozzino, I. Camele: Riv. Pat. Veg. S IV, 26 (1) (1990), pp. 11-22.
[4] R. Meignoz, E. Boudon Padieu, J. Larrue, A. Caudwell: J. Phytopath. 134 (1992), pp. 1-9.
[5] R. Musetti, M.A. Favali, L. Carraro, R. Osler: Cytobios 72 (1992), pp. 71-82.
[6] R. Musetti, M.A. Favali, L. Carraro, R. Osler: Cytobios 78 (1994), pp. 81-90.
[7] R. Musetti, S. Scaramagli, C. Vighi, L. Pressacco, P. Torrigiani, M.A. Favali: Plant Biosystems 133 (1) (1999),
pp. 37-45.
[8] R. Musetti, M.A. Favali, L. Pressacco: Cytobios 102 (2000), pp. 133-147.
[9] R.G. Milne: Immunoelectron microscopy of plant viruses and mycoplasmas. In: Advances in disease vectors
research. Harris K. F. Ed. New York : Springer-Verlag. IX (1992), pp. 283-312.
[10] R. Musetti, N. Loi, L. Carraro, P. Ermacora: Microsc. Res. Techn. 56 (6) (2002), pp. 462-464.
[11] J. Giannotti, G. Morvan, C. Vago: C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 267 (1968), pp. 76-77.
[12] K. Karta, M.T. Cousin, E. Reugg: J. Indian Phytopathol. 28 (1973), pp. 51-56.
[13] L. Dienes, M.W. Ropes, W.E. Smith, S. Madoff, W. Bauer: New Eng. J. Med. 238 (1948), pp. 509-515.
[14] J. Deeley, W.A. Stevens, R.T.V. Fox: Phytopath. 69 (1979), pp. 1169-1171.
[15] D. Errampalli, J. Fletcher, P.L. Claypool: Pl. Dis. 75 (1991), pp. 579-584.
[16] M.T. Cousin, H. Darpoux, A. Faivre-Amiot, T. Staron: Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires de Seances de
LAcademie des Sciences. Paris, Serie D 271 (1970), pp. 1182-1184.
[17] G.R. Hooper, M.L. Lacy, G. Vest: Pl. Dis. Rep. 55 (1971), pp. 1108-1110.
[18] G. DAgostino, N. Massa, G. Lingua, G. Berta: Petria 10 (1970), pp. 113-114.
[19] M.T. Cousin, A.K. Sharma, S. Misra: J. Phytopath. 115 (1986), pp. 368-374.
[20] H. Schneider: Phytopath. 67 (1977), pp. 592-601.
[21] A.T. Dyer, W.A. Sinclair: Pl. Dis. 75 (8) (1991), pp. 814-819.
[22] W.C. Russel, C. Newman, D.H. Williamson: Nature 253 (1975), pp. 461-462.
[23] E. Seemller: Acta Hortic. 67 (1976), pp. 109-112.
[24] C. Hiruki, A. da Rocha: Can. J. Pl. Pathol. 8 (1986), pp. 185-188.
[25] U. Shaper, E. Seemller: Phytopath. 72 (1982), pp. 736-742.
[26] S.M. Douglas: Phytopath. 76 (1986), pp. 784-787.
[27] J.L. Dale: Phytopath. 78 (1988), pp. 118-120.
[28] R. Musetti, R. Pedrazzini, M.A. Favali, L. Carraro: 1991. Riv. Pat. Veg. S.V, 1 (1991), pp. 9-14.

FORMATEX 2004

80

Rita Musetti et al.: Microscopy Techniques Applied to the Study of Phytoplasma Diseases...

[29] M.A. Favali, R. Musetti, S. Benvenuti, A. Bianchi, L. Pressacco: Protoplasma 223 (1) (2004), pp. 45-51.
[30] M.F. Clark, A. Morton, S.L. Buss: Ann. Appl. Biol. 114 (1989), pp. 111-124.
[31] D.L. Davies, M.F. Clark: Acta Hortic. 383 (1992), pp. 275-283.
[32] A. Da Rocha, S.T. Ohki, C. Hiruki: Phytopath. 76 (1986), pp. 864-868.
[33] N. Loi, P. Ermacora, L. Carraro, R. Osler, T.A. Chen: Eur. J. Pl. Path. 108 (2002), pp. 81-86.
[34] M.A. Favali, R. Musetti, L. Carraro: Phytopath. Medit. 32 (1993), pp. 90-91.
[35] N. Loi, L. Carraro, R. Musetti, G. Firrao, R. Osler: J. Phytopath. 143 (1995), pp. 581-584.
[36] R. Musetti, L. Sanit di Toppi, P. Ermacora, M.A. Favali: Phytopath. 94 (2) (2004), pp. 203-208.
[37] R.C. Sinha, L.N. Chiykowski: Can. J. Pl. Pathol. 6 (1984), pp. 200-205.
[38] R.C. Sinha, L.N. Chiykowski: Can. J. Pl. Pathol. 8 (1986), pp. 387-393.
[39] R.C. Sinha: In: Hiruki C. (ed.): Tree mycoplasmas and mycoplasma diseases, University of Alberta Press,
Edmonton (1988), pp. 143-156.
[40] J. Lherminier, E. Boudon-Padieu, R. Meignoz, A. Caudwell, R.G. Milne: In : Electron Microscopy of Plant
Pathogens. Mendgen K., Lesemann D.E. (Eds.) Springer-Verlag, Berlin (1991), pp. 177-184.
[41] R.G. Milne: In: Electron Microscopy of Plant Pathogens. Mendgen K., Lesemann D.E. (Eds.), Springer-Verlag,
Berlin (1991), pp. 87-102.
[42] C. Vera, R.G. Milne: Plant Pathol. 43 (1994), pp. 190-199.
[43] K.S. Derrick, R.H. Brlansky: Phytopath. 66 (1976), pp. 815-820.
[44] R.C. Sinha, N. Benhamou: Phytopath. 73 (1983), pp. 1199-1202.
[45] G. Keane, A. Edwards, M.F. Clark: In: Brighton Crop Prot. Conf. Symp. Proc. NO65: Diagn. Crop Prod.
(1996), pp.263-268.
[46] Y.D. Chen, T.A. Chen: Phytopath. 88 (1998), pp. 1367-1371.
[47] N. Benhamou In: Colloidal Gold. Principles, Methods and Application, M.A. Hayat (ed.) vol. 1, Academic
Press, San Diego, USA (1989), pp. 95-143.
[48] J. Lherminier, E. Boudon-Padieu, G. Preniser, A. Caudwell : J. Histochem. Cytochem. 38 (1990), pp. 79-85.
[49] M.A. Berryman, R.D. Rodewald: J. Histochem. Cytochem. 38 (1990), pp. 156-170.
[50]M. Hoopert: Microscopic techniques in biotechnology. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, Germany (2003)
[51] G. DAgostino: J. Struct. Biol. 107 (1991), pp. 56-64.
[52] G.H. Haggis, R.C. Sinha: Phytopath. 68 (1978), pp. 677-680.
[53] S. Quaroni, M. Saracchi, R. Tornaghi, F. Faoro: Riv. Pat. Veg. S IV, (26) (1990), pp.79-84.
[54] C. Marcone, A. Ragozzino: Petria 6 (2) (1996), pp. 125-136.
[55] M.A. Favali, G. Lombardo: Ann. Micr. 20 (1970), pp. 81-83.
[56] J. Lepka, M. Stitt, E. Moll, E. Seemller: Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 55 (1999), pp. 59-68.
[57] M. Heinrich, S. Botti, L. Caprara, W. Arthofer, S. Strommer, V. Hanzer, H. Katinger, A. Bertaccini, M. Laimer:
Pl. Mol. Biol. Rep. 19 (2001), pp. 169-179.
[58] R. Musetti, M.A. Favali: Micron 34 (8) (2003), pp. 387-393.
[59] A. Ragozzino, R. Musetti, M.A. Favali, I. Camele: Riv. Pat. Veg. S IV, 26 (1) (1990), pp. 1-10.
[60] M.C. Heath, Z.L. Nimchuk, H. Xu: New Phytol. 135 (1997), pp. 689-700.
[61] M.C. Heath: New Phytol. 138 (1998), pp. 251-263.
[62] C. Reichel, R.N. Beachy: Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95, (1998), pp. 11169-11174.

FORMATEX 2004