Complex Forest Tree Diseases – Diagnostics Beyond Koch’s Postulates

IF 9 1区 农林科学 Q1 FORESTRY Current Forestry Reports Pub Date : 2024-05-29 DOI:10.1007/s40725-024-00220-w
Pierluigi (Enrico) Bonello
{"title":"Complex Forest Tree Diseases – Diagnostics Beyond Koch’s Postulates","authors":"Pierluigi (Enrico) Bonello","doi":"10.1007/s40725-024-00220-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Purpose of Review</h3><p>Forest tree diseases are a major contributor to forest degradation and loss of productivity. They are often quite complex in their causation (etiology), especially in the case of forest syndromes, i.e. diseases with multiple causes and concurrent symptoms. Traditionally, to prove pathogenicity of a microbial agent, and thus correctly diagnose the etiology of a disease, plant pathologists must satisfy all of the so-called Koch’s postulates, as mandated by their deontological code. This review examines whether this approach is still current.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Recent Findings</h3><p>Koch’s postulates state that a pathogen is a microorganism that, after being isolated in pure culture, can reproduce the disease when it is inoculated into a healthy plant. Over the decades, plant pathologists as well as medical scientists have discovered that these postulates are not always applicable in their entirety and that, furthermore, novel approaches based on molecular biology can be very helpful in uncovering relationships between microbes and diseases that are not easily proven using Koch’s postulates.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Summary</h3><p>I conclude that Koch’s postulates are not a viable approach for many forest tree diseases and propose a set of new guidelines, based on the <i>preponderance of the evidence</i> principle, to integrate this proven approach and bring it into the twenty-first century.</p>","PeriodicalId":48653,"journal":{"name":"Current Forestry Reports","volume":"50 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Forestry Reports","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40725-024-00220-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Forest tree diseases are a major contributor to forest degradation and loss of productivity. They are often quite complex in their causation (etiology), especially in the case of forest syndromes, i.e. diseases with multiple causes and concurrent symptoms. Traditionally, to prove pathogenicity of a microbial agent, and thus correctly diagnose the etiology of a disease, plant pathologists must satisfy all of the so-called Koch’s postulates, as mandated by their deontological code. This review examines whether this approach is still current.

Recent Findings

Koch’s postulates state that a pathogen is a microorganism that, after being isolated in pure culture, can reproduce the disease when it is inoculated into a healthy plant. Over the decades, plant pathologists as well as medical scientists have discovered that these postulates are not always applicable in their entirety and that, furthermore, novel approaches based on molecular biology can be very helpful in uncovering relationships between microbes and diseases that are not easily proven using Koch’s postulates.

Summary

I conclude that Koch’s postulates are not a viable approach for many forest tree diseases and propose a set of new guidelines, based on the preponderance of the evidence principle, to integrate this proven approach and bring it into the twenty-first century.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
复杂的林木疾病--超越科赫定理的诊断方法
综述目的林木疾病是造成森林退化和生产力损失的主要因素。林木病害的成因(病因学)往往相当复杂,尤其是森林综合症,即具有多种病因和并发症状的病害。传统上,要证明微生物病原体的致病性,从而正确诊断疾病的病因,植物病理学家必须满足所谓的 "科赫假设"(Koch's postulates),这也是他们的道德准则所规定的。最新研究结果科赫假说指出,病原体是一种微生物,在纯培养物中分离出来后,接种到健康植物中就能繁殖病害。几十年来,植物病理学家和医学家发现,这些假设并不总是完全适用的,此外,基于分子生物学的新方法可以很好地帮助揭示微生物与疾病之间的关系,而这些关系使用科赫假设并不容易证明。摘要我的结论是,科赫假设对于许多林木疾病来说并不是一种可行的方法,并根据证据优势原则提出了一套新的指导原则,以整合这种行之有效的方法并将其带入 21 世纪。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Current Forestry Reports
Current Forestry Reports Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
CiteScore
15.90
自引率
2.10%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Current Forestry Reports features in-depth review articles written by global experts on significant advancements in forestry. Its goal is to provide clear, insightful, and balanced contributions that highlight and summarize important topics for forestry researchers and managers. To achieve this, the journal appoints international authorities as Section Editors in various key subject areas like physiological processes, tree genetics, forest management, remote sensing, and wood structure and function. These Section Editors select topics for which leading experts contribute comprehensive review articles that focus on new developments and recently published papers of great importance. Moreover, an international Editorial Board evaluates the yearly table of contents, suggests articles of special interest to their specific country or region, and ensures that the topics are up-to-date and include emerging research.
期刊最新文献
Established Invasive Tree Species Offer Opportunities for Forest Resilience to Climate Change The Ecology, Economics, and Management of Agrilus Beetles From Industry 5.0 to Forestry 5.0: Bridging the gap with Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence A Review of Software Solutions to Process Ground-based Point Clouds in Forest Applications Sustainability, Circularity, and Innovation in Wood-based Panel Manufacturing in the 2020s: Opportunities and Challenges
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1