Skip to main content
BMC Microbiology logoLink to BMC Microbiology
. 2021 Oct 25;21:291. doi: 10.1186/s12866-021-02351-7

Xanthomonas bacteriophages: a review of their biology and biocontrol applications in agriculture

Ritah Nakayinga 1,, Angela Makumi 2, Venansio Tumuhaise 3, William Tinzaara 3
PMCID: PMC8543423  PMID: 34696726

Abstract

Phytopathogenic bacteria are economically important because they affect crop yields and threaten the livelihoods of farmers worldwide. The genus Xanthomonas is particularly significant because it is associated with some plant diseases that cause tremendous loss in yields of globally essential crops. Current management practices are ineffective, unsustainable and harmful to natural ecosystems. Bacteriophage (phage) biocontrol for plant disease management has been of particular interest from the early nineteenth century to date. Xanthomonas phage research for plant disease management continues to demonstrate promising results under laboratory and field conditions. AgriPhage has developed phage products for the control of Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria and Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri. These are causative agents for tomato, pepper spot and speck disease as well as citrus canker disease.

Phage-mediated biocontrol is becoming a viable option because phages occur naturally and are safe for disease control and management. Thorough knowledge of biological characteristics of Xanthomonas phages is vital for developing effective biocontrol products. This review covers Xanthomonas phage research highlighting aspects of their ecology, biology and biocontrol applications.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12866-021-02351-7.

Keywords: Taxonomy, Distribution, Isolation source, Host range, Life cycle, Phage efficacy

Background

The genus Xanthomonas; is a well-studied group of plant-associated Gram-negative bacteria that belong to the family Xanthomonadaceae subclass Gammaproteobacteria [1]. An estimated 27 species is pathogenic to approximately 400 plants. These include but not limited to sugar cane, beans, cassava, cabbage, banana, citrus, tomatoes, pepper and rice [2]. The life cycle of Xanthomonas has two stages: epiphytic and endophytic [3]. The epiphytic stage starts once bacteria colonize the surfaces of a new plant using adhesion ligands such as bacteria surface polysaccharides [4], adhesion proteins [5], and type IV pili [6]. After colonization comes biofilm formation, which then protects the bacteria from environmental stress factors [7]. The endophytic stage is characterised by bacterial entry into plant tissue via lesions or stomata and eventual movement throughout the vascular system. The bacteria re-emerge onto the plant surfaces once their population reaches the threshold, transmission occurs to new hosts and the infection cycle repeats [3].

Although Xanthomonas species are well-studied, the genus remains responsible for many crop diseases that cause crop yield losses in economically important crops worldwide [2, 3].

The current management methods used to control Xanthomonas-associated diseases include de-budding, uprooting, burying and burning of infected plant tissues, sterilization of garden tools, and application of copper-based pesticides and antibiotics such as streptomycin [810]. The concerns raised about ineffective cultural practices, copper-based pesticide, antibiotic resistance problems, and environmental chemical contamination have piqued worldwide interest in Xanthomonas phage research and biocontrol application in agriculture.

Phages are viruses that infect and replicate in bacteria. Phage replication cycles include temperate and lytic pathways with the lytic pathway being the easier and more important pathway for employment in phage biocontrol. In the lytic pathway the phages bind to the surface of bacteria after which they inject their DNA and replicate inside the cell. This results in the production of phage progeny that lyse and kill the bacteria [11]. In the temperate pathway, once the phage has successfully bound and injected its DNA into the host, the phage may either stably integrate into the genome of the bacteria or enter into the lytic life cycle. Using temperate phages in phage biocontrol poses some disadvantages in that, once the phage inserts its genome into the bacterial DNA chromosome, the prophage is transmitted to daughter cells by horizontal gene transfer thereby providing undesirable genes that may aggravate bacterial disease, e.g. filamentous phage CTX Φ that encodes cholera toxin [12].

Historically, bacteriophage-based biocontrol specific for phytopathogen Xanthomonas dates back to the early nineteenth century, when a filtrate of decomposing cabbage stopped the spread of cabbage-rot disease caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris, [13]. Decades later, similar biocontrol success was reported with phage-containing lysates that inhibited bacterial spot disease in peach caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. pruni [14, 15]. A number of phage applications have progressed from in-vitro experiments to field trials. These include studies on bacterial spot of tomato caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria [16]; geranium bacterial blight caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. pelargonii [17]; leaf blight of onion caused by Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. allii [18]; citrus canker and citrus bacterial spot caused by Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri and Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citrumelo [19]; asiatic citrus canker caused by Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri [20] and Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri [21]; bacterial leaf blight of rice caused by Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae [22, 23] and bacterial leaf blight of welsh onions caused by Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. allii [24]. Two Xanthomonas phage products manufactured by AgriPhage [25] have been shown to successfully control pathogens that cause tomato and pepper spot disease and citrus canker disease.

Owing to the growing interest in using Xanthomonas phages to control the genus Xanthomonas, this review emphasizes the taxonomy, ecology, biology and biocontrol applications.

Main text

Taxonomy of Xanthomonas phages

A total of 168 Xanthomonas phages described to date classify into orders: Caudovirales with 151 phages and Tubulavirales with 17 phages (Additional file 1). According to the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV), Caudovirales contain 9 families [26] and Xanthomonas phages reported in literature or National Centre for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) database belong to 5 families namely: Podoviridae, Siphoviridae, Myoviridae, Autographiviridae, and Herelleviridae (Additional file 1). A total of 71 Xanthomonas phages belong to Myoviridae, 42 belong to Podoviridae, 34 belong to Siphoviridae, 17 belong to Inoviridae, 3 belong to Autographiviridae and 1 member to Herelleviridae. Order Caudovirales possess tubular tails that can be either long and contractile (Myoviridae), long and non-contractile (Siphoviridae), or short and non-contractile (Podoviridae, Autographiviridae) [2628]. The capsids of Caudovirales are non-enveloped, exhibit icosahedral symmetry with a typical diameter of 45 and 170 nm and encapsidate linear double-stranded genomes. Their genome length is between 39,980 and 384,670 nucleotides, carries between 40 and 592 open reading frames and has a guanine-cytosine (GC) content between 40 and 66% (Additional file 1). On the other hand, Tubulavirales consist of one family; Inoviridae. They are filamentous virions that possess helical symmetry and non-enveloped capsid (Additional file 1). The inovirus genomes are small, circular, single-stranded DNA molecules that range between 6000 and 8500 nucleotides. The genome encodes between 9 and 14 open reading frames and has a GC content between 57 and 60% (Additional file 1).

Ecology and host range

Ecology: geographical distribution, environmental isolation source, host bacteria and plant disease.

Geographical distribution

The geographical distribution of Xanthomonas phages spans parts of Asia, North America, South America, Europe, Zealandia and North Africa. The countries where the phages are isolated are summarized in Table 1. The Xathomonas phages are distributed across the world depending on the pathogen that is present in that part of the world.

Table 1.

Country of isolation of Xanthomonas phages, their families and host strain/s they infect

Country of isolation Xanthomonas phage/s Family Causative bacterium Reference
China Xop41 Siphoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [29]
China Xoo-sp1,Xoo-sp2, Xoo-sp3, Xoo-sp4, Xoo-sp5, Xoo-sp6, Xoo-sp7, Xoo-sp8, Xoo-sp9, Xoo-sp10, Xoo-sp11, Xoo-sp12, Xoo-sp13, Xoo-sp14, Xoo-sp15 Siphoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [30]
China X1, X2, X3, X4, X5 Myoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [31]
China Xoo-sp14 Myoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [32]
China Xoo-sp13 Myoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [33]
China Xf409 Inoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzicola [34]
Taiwan Xp10, Xp12, Xp20 Siphoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [35]
Taiwan ϕXc10 Autographiviridae X. citri pv. glycines, X. campestris pv. campestris, X. campestris pv. citri [36]
Korea P8L, P27L, P30L, P59L, P73L Siphoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [22]
Korea P4L, P4M, P6M, P6M1, P14M, P14M1, P18M, P23M1,P33M, P37L, P37M, P37M1, P41M, P43M, P45M, P47M, P50M, P53M, P54M, P57M, P58M, P60M, P61M, P62M, P66M, P68M, P70M, P71L, P72M Myoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [22]
Japan XacN1 Myoviridae X. citri [37]
Viet Nam Phage Xaa_vB_ϕ31 Autographiviridae X. euvesicatoria pv. allii XaaBL11 [38]
Philippines XPP1 Myoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [39]
Philippines XPP2 Myoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [39]
Philippines XPP3 Myoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [39]
Philippines XPP4 Myoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [39]
Philippines XPP6 Myoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [39]
Philippines XPP8 Myoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [39]
Philippines XPP9 Myoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [39]
Philippines XPV1 Myoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [39]
Philippines XPV2 Myoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [39]
Philippines XPV3 Myoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [39]
India φXOF1 Siphoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [23]
India φXOF2 Siphoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [23]
India φXOF3 Siphoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [23]
India φXOF4 Siphoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [23]
India φXOT1 Siphoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [23]
India φXOT2 Siphoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [23]
India φXOM1 Siphoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [23]
India φXOM2 Siphoviridae X. oryzae pv. oryzae [23]
India Xcc9SH3 Siphoviridae X. campestris pv. campestris [40]
India Xcc3SH, Xcc6SH3, Xcc7SH3, Xcc8SH3, Xcc9SH3, Xcc14SH3, JPS-xcc-3_P1, JPS-xcc-4_P1, JPS-xcc-7_P1, NBL-xcc-7_P1, NBL-xcc-4_P1, NBL-xcc-7_P1, NBL-xcc-3_P1, NBL-xcc-9_P1,NFS-xcc-9_P1, GRW-xcc-9_P1, NFS-xcc-9_P2, NBL-xcc-9_P2, GRW-xcc-10_P1, NFS-xcc-10_P1, NBL-xcc-10_P1, GRW-xcc-14_P1, NFS-xcc-14_P1, NBL-xcc-14_P1, GRW-xcc-17_P1, NFS-xcc-17_P1, NBL-xcc-17_P1, GRW-xcc-19_P1, NFS-xcc-19_P1, NBL-xcc-19_P1 n/a X. campestris pv. campestris [40]
India Xap-1, Xap-2, Xap-3, Xap-4, Xap-5 n/a X. axonopodis pv. punicae [41]
USA T7-like podophage Pagan Autographiviridae Xanthomonas sp., rice isolate ATCC PTA-13101 [42]
USA Cf2 Inoviridae X. citri pv. citri [43]
USA Phage River Rider Podoviridae X. fragariae [44]
Mexico Xaf13 Inoviridae X. vesicatoria [45]
Mexico ϕXaf18 Myoviridae X. vesicatoria [46]
Brazil XC2 Myoviridae X. campestris pv. campestris [47]
Chile f30-Xaj Podoviridae X. arboricola pv. juglandis [48]
Chile f20-Xaj Podoviridae X. arboricola pv. juglandis [48]
Russia DB 1 Siphoviridae X. campestris pv. campestris [49]
Serbia Kɸ1, Kɸ15 Myoviridae X. euvesicatoria [50]
Serbia Kɸ1, Kɸ2, Kɸ3, Kɸ4, Kɸ5, Kɸ6, Kɸ7, Kɸ8, Kɸ9, Kɸ15 n/a X. euvesicatoria [50]
New Zealand BP60C1–3, Bp10, Bp20, Bp22 Myoviridae X. campestris pv. juglandis [51]
New Zealand P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10, P11, P12, P13, P14, P15, P16, P17, P18, P19, P20, P21, P22, P23, P24, P25, P26 Siphoviridae X. arboricola pv. juglandis [52]
France Phage Olaya Podoviridae X. albilineans CFBP2523 [53]
France Phage Bolivar Podoviridae X. albilineans CFBP2523 [54]
France Phage Usaquen Podoviridae X. albilineans CFBP2523 [55]
France Phage Alcala Podoviridae X. albilineans CFBP2523 [56]
France Phage Fontebon Podoviridae X. albilineans CFBP2523 [57]
France Phage Soumapaz Podoviridae X. albilineans CFBP2523 [58]
Belgium FoX7 Myoviridae X. campestris pv. campestris GBBC 1412 [59]
Belgium FoX6 Myoviridae X. campestris pv. campestris GBBC 1412 [60]
Belgium FoX5 Myoviridae X. campestris pv. campestris GBBC 1419 [61]
Belgium FoX3 Myoviridae X. campestris pv. campestris GBBC 1420 [62]
Belgium FoX2 Myoviridae X. campestris pv. campestris GBBC 1419 [63]
Belgium FoX1 Myoviridae X. campestris pv. campestris GBBC 1419 [64]
Belgium FoX4 Siphoviridae X. campestris pv. campestris GBBC 1412 [65]
Moldova Phage PPDBI Podoviridae X. campestris pv. campestris [49]
Egypt Phage 1, Phage 2 n/a X. axonopodis [66]

n/a not available; X Xanthomonas; pv pathovar; sp species

Ecology: environmental isolation source, host bacteria and plant disease

The environmental isolation source of Xanthomonas phages as well as bacterial host and plant disease are summarized in Table 2. These viruses establish infection in Xanthomonas pathovars responsible for a range of plant diseases including but not limited to bacterial leaf blight, black rot, bacterial leaf spot and citrus canker (Table 2). The majority of Xanthomonas phages are isolated from infected plant phyllosphere and rhizosphere, while others are isolated from compost, sewage and water (irrigation, pond, freshwater lakes and rivers) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Ecology of selected Xanthomonas phages: environmental source of isolation, host bacteria and plant disease

Xanthomonas phage/s Environmental source Host bacterium Plant disease Plant Reference
Xop411 Xoo infected leaves X. oryzae pv. oryzae Bacterial leaf blight Rice [29]
Xp12 Xoo infected paddy water X. oryzae pv. oryzae Bacterial leaf blight Rice [67]
P4L, P4M, P6M, P6M1, P14M, P14M1, P18M, P23M1,P33M, P37L, P37M, P37M1, P41M, P43M, P45M, P47M, P50M, P53M, P54M, P57M, P58M, P60M, P61M, P62M, P66M, P68M, P70M, P71L, P72M, P8L, P27L, P30L, P59L, P73L Xoo infected paddy water X. oryzae pv. oryzae Bacterial leaf blight Rice [22]
XPP1-XPP9, XPV1-XPV3 Xoo infected paddy water & soil X. oryzae pv. oryzae Bacterial leaf blight Rice [39]
X1, X2, X3, X4, X5 Xoo infected leaves X. oryzae pv. oryzae Bacterial leaf blight Rice [31]
φXOF1-φXOF4, φXOT1- φXOT2, φXOM1-φXOM2 Xoo infected leaves X. oryzae pv. oryzae Bacterial leaf blight Rice [23]
Xoo-sp1, Xoo-sp2, Xoo-sp3, Xoo-sp4, Xoo-sp5, Xoo-sp6, Xoo-sp7, Xoo-sp8, Xoo-sp9, Xoo-sp10, Xoo-sp11, Xoo-sp12, Xoo-sp13, Xoo-sp14, Xoo-sp15 Xoo infected paddy soil X. oryzae pv. oryzae Bacterial leaf blight Rice [30]
Xf Xoo infected leaves X. oryzae pv. oryzae Bacterial leaf blight Rice [68]
Xcc3SH, Xcc6SH3, Xcc7SH3, Xcc8SH3, Xcc9SH3, Xcc14SH3, JPS-xcc-3_P1, JPS-xcc-4_P1, JPS-xcc-7_P1, NBL-xcc-7_P1, NBL-xcc-4_P1, NBL-xcc-7_P1, NBL-xcc-3_P1, NBL-xcc-9_P1,NFS-xcc-9_P1, GRW-xcc-9_P1, NFS-xcc-9_P2, NBL-xcc-9_P2, GRW-xcc-10_P1, NFS-xcc-10_P1, NBL-xcc-10_P1, GRW-xcc-14_P1, NFS-xcc-14_P1, NBL-xcc-14_P1, GRW-xcc-17_P1, NFS-xcc-17_P1, NBL-xcc-17_P1, GRW-xcc-19_P1, NFS-xcc-19_P1, NBL-xcc-19_P1 Xcc infected soil and leaves, river water X. campestris pv. campestris Black rot Crucifers; cabbage, cauliflower, brasicca [40]
Pg125 Xcc infected swede seed, compost & sewage X. campestris pv. campestris Black rot Crucifers; turnip, cabbage, swede [69]
Xcc φ1 Xcc infected soil X. campestris pv. campestris Black rot Crucifers;broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, radish [70]
XTP1 Xcc infected soil X. campestris pv. campestris Black rot Crucifers; cabbage [71]
XcaP1 Xcc infected leaves X. campestris pv. campestris Black rot Crucifers; cabbage [72]
XC2 Xcc infected leaves X. campestris pv. campestris Black rot Crucifer; cauliflower [47]
DB 1 Xcc infected soil X. campestris pv. campestris Black rot Crucifer, cabbage [49]
XcuP3 Xcu infected fruit X. campestris pv. cucurbitae Bacterial leaf spot Pumpkin [72]
XcuP1 Xcu infected leaves X. campestris pv. cucurbitae Bacterial leaf spot Zucchini [72]
XholP1 Xho infected Leaves X. campestris pv. holcicola Bacterial leaf streak Sorghum [72]
Xp3-I Xp infected soil X. pruni Bacterial leaf spot Peach [15]
Xp3-A. Xp infected soil X. pruni Bacterial leaf spot Peach [15]
XprP1 Xpr infected stem X. campestris pv. pruni Bacterial leaf spot Plum [72]
XmaP1 Xma infected leaves X. campestris pv. malvacearum Bacterial blight Cotton [72]
XveP1 Xve infected leaves X. campestris pv. vesicatoria Bacterial leaf spot Goosberry [72]
Kɸ1, Kɸ2, Kɸ3, Kɸ4, Kɸ5, Kɸ6, Kɸ7, Kɸ8, Kɸ9, Kɸ15 Xeu infected leaves, stems, fruits, soil, seeds & irrigation water X. euvesicatoria Bacterial leaf spot Pepper [50]
Phages I to XX Xtr infected grains X. trifolii Wheat disease Wheat [73]
X. phage 1 & X. phage 2 Xax infected leaves X. axonopodis Bacterial leaf spot Pepper [66]
Xap-1, Xap-2, Xap-3, Xap-4, Xap-5 Pond water X. axonopodis pv. punicae Bacterial leaf blight Pomegranate [41]
1, 20, 22, ΦPS, ΦSD, ΦSL, ΦRS, Φ56, Φ112, Pg60 Sewage, compost, Xp infected soil, seed & dry bean straw X. phaseoli Common blight of beans Beans [74]
Pg176, Pg177, Pg181, Xp infected soil X. phaseoli Common blight of beans Beans [75]
Xanthomonas Siphophage Samson Sewage X. sp. strain ATCC PTA-13101 Bacterial leaf blight Rice [76]
Xanthomonas phage pagan Fresh water X. sp. strain ATCC PTA-13101 Bacterial leaf blight Rice [42]
Xanthomonas phage XacN1 Xci infected soil X. citri Asian citrus canker Orange [37]
BP60C1–3, Bp10, Bp20, Bp22 Xcj infected soil X. campestris pv. juglandis Walnut blight Walnut [51]
P1-P26 Xaj infected soil, leaves & fruit X. arboricola pv. juglandis Walnut blight Walnut [52]
XaF13 Xve infected soil X. vesicatoria Bacterial leaf spot Pepper [45]

X, Xanthomonas; pv, Pathovar; sp., species; Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae; Xcc, Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris; Xcu, Xanthomonas campestris pv. cucurbitae; Xho, Xanthomonas campestris pv. holcicola; Xp, Xanthomonas pruni; Xpr, Xanthomonas campestris pv. pruni; Xma, Xanthomonas campestris pv. malvacearum; Xve, Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria; Xeu, Xanthomonas euvesicatoria; Xtr, Xanthomonas trifolii; Xax, Xanthomonas axonopodis; Xp, Xanthomonas phaseoli; Xci, Xanthomonas citri; Xcj, Xanthomonas campestris pv. juglandis; Xaj, Xanthomonas arboricola pv. juglandis; Xve, Xanthomonas vesicatoria

Host range

Phages with a narrow host range infect one or few of the same bacteria strains, broad host range phages infect multiple strains of the same bacteria, and polyvalent phages infect several species or unrelated genera [77, 78]. A total of 148 Xanthomonas phages described in literature have a narrow, broad or polyvalent host range. Of these 52 have a narrow and 88 have a broad host range. The remaining 8 have a polyvalent host range. The lytic activity of phages with a narrow host range is between 13 and 57% while those with a broad range is between 60 and 100% (Table 3).

Table 3.

Host range of Xanthomonas phages

Host range Phage Bacteria strain used Number bacteria strains Lysed bacteria strains % lytic activity Reference
Narrow X. vesicatoria phage (chilli derived) X. vesicatoria 8 4 50 [79]
Narrow X. vesicatoria phage (datura derived) X. vesicatoria 8 1 13 [79]
Narrow XC2 X. campestris pv. campestris 10 5 50 [47]
Broad Xoo-sp1 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 10 9 90 [30]
Broad Xoo-sp2 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 10 9 90 [30]
Broad Xoo-sp3 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 10 9 90 [30]
Broad Xoo-sp4 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 10 9 90 [30]
Broad Xoo-sp5 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 10 9 90 [30]
Broad Xoo-sp6 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 10 9 90 [30]
Broad Xoo-sp7 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 10 9 90 [30]
Broad Xoo-sp8 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 10 9 90 [30]
Broad Xoo-sp9 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 10 9 90 [30]
Broad Xoo-sp10 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 10 9 90 [30]
zBroad Xoo-sp11 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 10 9 90 [30]
Broad Xoo-sp12 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 10 9 90 [30]
Broad Xoo-sp13 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 10 9 90 [30]
Broad Xoo-sp14 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 10 9 90 [30]
Broad Xoo-sp15 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 10 9 90 [30]
Broad Kϕ1 X. euvesicatoria 59 59 100 [50]
Broad Kϕ2 X. euvesicatoria 59 59 100 [50]
Broad Kϕ3 X. euvesicatoria 59 59 100 [50]
Broad Kϕ4 X. euvesicatoria 59 59 100 [50]
Broad Kϕ5 X. euvesicatoria 59 59 100 [50]
Broad Kϕ6 X. euvesicatoria 59 59 100 [50]
Broad Kϕ7 X. euvesicatoria 59 59 100 [50]
Broad Kϕ8 X. euvesicatoria 59 59 100 [50]
Broad Kϕ9 X. euvesicatoria 59 59 100 [50]
Broad Kϕ15 X. euvesicatoria 59 47 80 [50]
Broad Xma-P1 X. pv. malvacearum 8 8 100 [72]
Broad Xho-P1 X. campestris pv. holcicola 4 4 100 [72]
Broad Xpr-P1 X. campestris pv. pruni 6 6 100 [72]
Broad OP2 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 82 78 95 [80]
Broad OP1h2 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 82 75 91 [80]
Narrow OP1 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 82 46 56 [80]
Narrow OP1h X. oryzae pv. oryzae 82 20 24 [80]
Broad φXOF1 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 6 4 67 [23]
Broad φXOF2 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 6 4 67 [23]
Broad φXOF3 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 6 5 83 [23]
Broad φXOF4 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 6 6 100 [23]
Narrow φXOT1 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 6 3 50 [23]
Narrow φXOT2 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 6 3 50 [23]
Narrow φXOM1 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 6 3 50 [23]
Narrow φXOM2 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 6 3 50 [23]
Broad X1 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 23 15 65 [31]
Broad X2 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 23 21 91 [31]
Broad X3 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 23 22 96 [31]
Broad X4 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 23 21 91 [31]
Broad X5 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 23 14 61 [31]
Broad P4L X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 33 70 [22]
Broad P4M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 46 98 [22]
Broad P6M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Broad P6M1 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Broad P8L X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 36 77 [22]
Broad P14M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Broad P14M1 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Broad P18M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Broad P23M1 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Broad P27L X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 33 70 [22]
Broad P30L X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 31 66 [22]
Broad P33M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Broad P37L X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 33 70 [22]
Broad P37M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Broad P37M1 X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 46 98 [22]
Broad P41M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Broad P43M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Broad P45M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 33 70 [22]
Broad P47M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Broad P50M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Broad P53M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Broad P54M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Broad P57M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Broad P58M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Broad P59L X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 31 66 [22]
Broad P60M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 28 60 [22]
Broad P61M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Broad P62M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Broad P66M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 46 98 [22]
Broad P68M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Broad P70M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Narrow P71L X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 27 57 [22]
Broad P72M X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 47 100 [22]
Broad P73L X. oryzae pv. oryzae 47 46 98 [22]
Narrow Xcc3SH X. campestris pv. campestris 17 6 35 [40]
Narrow Xcc7SH X. campestris pv. campestris 17 5 29 [40]
Narrow Xcc6SH X. campestris pv. campestris 17 7 41 [40]
Narrow Xcc8SH X. campestris pv. campestris 17 4 24 [40]
Narrow Xcc9LK X. campestris pv. campestris 17 5 29 [40]
Broad Xcc9SH3 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 17 100 [40]
Narrow Xcc14SH X. campestris pv. campestris 17 7 41 [40]
Narrow JPS-xcc-3_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 6 35 [40]
Narrow JPS-xcc-4_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 6 35 [40]
Narrow JPS-xcc-7_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 6 35 [40]
Narrow NBL-xcc-7_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 6 35 [40]
Narrow NBL-xcc-4_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 4 24 [40]
Narrow NBL-xcc-7_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 5 29 [40]
Narrow NBL-xcc-3_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 3 18 [40]
Narrow NBL-xcc-9_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 8 47 [40]
Narrow NFS-xcc-9_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 6 35 [40]
Narrow GRW-xcc-9_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 3 18 [40]
Narrow NFS-xcc-9_P2 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 5 29 [40]
Narrow NBL-xcc-9_P2 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 7 41 [40]
Narrow GRW-xcc-10_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 7 41 [40]
Narrow NFS-xcc-10_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 3 18 [40]
Narrow NBL-xcc-10_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 5 29 [40]
Narrow GRW-xcc-14_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 8 47 [40]
Narrow NFS-xcc-14_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 12 71 [40]
Narrow NBL-xcc-14_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 7 41 [40]
Narrow GRW-xcc-17_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 9 53 [40]
Narrow NFS-xcc-17_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 3 18 [40]
Narrow NBL-xcc-17_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 5 29 [40]
Narrow GRW-xcc-19_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 8 47 [40]
Narrow NFS-xcc-19_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 12 71 [40]
Narrow NBL-xcc-19_P1 X. campestris pv. campestris 17 7 41 [40]
Broad Pg60 X. phaseoli 16 15 94 [69]
Broad Pg176 X. phaseoli 16 14 88 [69]
Narrow Pg177 X. phaseoli 16 7 44 [69]
Narrow Pg181 X. phaseoli 16 9 56 [69]
Broad P1 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 14 88 [52]
Broad P2 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 13 81 [52]
Broad P3 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 12 75 [52]
Broad P4 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 14 88 [52]
Broad P5 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 13 81 [52]
Broad P6 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 14 88 [52]
Broad P7 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 10 63 [52]
Broad P8 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 12 75 [52]
Broad P9 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 11 69 [52]
Broad P10 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 12 75 [52]
Broad P11 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 12 75 [52]
Broad P12 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 11 69 [52]
Broad P13 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 11 69 [52]
Broad P14 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 14 88 [52]
Broad P15 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 14 88 [52]
Broad P16 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 12 75 [52]
Broad P17 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 12 75 [52]
Broad P18 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 14 88 [52]
Broad P19 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 14 88 [52]
Broad P20 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 14 88 [52]
Broad P21 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 11 69 [52]
Broad P22 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 12 75 [52]
Narrow P23 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 5 31 [52]
Narrow P24 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 5 31 [52]
Narrow P25 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 7 44 [52]
Narrow P26 X. arboricora pv. juglandis 16 5 31 [52]
Narrow ϕ5A X. axonopodis pv. allii 12 5 42 [24]
Narrow ϕ5B X. axonopodis pv. allii 12 5 42 [24]
Broad ϕ6 X. axonopodis pv. allii 12 9 75 [24]
Narrow ϕ7A X. axonopodis pv. allii 12 7 58 [24]
Narrow Φ7B X. axonopodis pv. allii 12 7 58 [24]
Narrow Φ14 X. axonopodis pv. allii 12 6 50 [24]
Broad Φ16 X. axonopodis pv. allii 12 11 92 [24]
Broad Φ17A X. axonopodis pv. allii 12 11 92 [24]
Broad Φ17B X. axonopodis pv. allii 12 9 75 [24]
Broad Φ31 X. axonopodis pv. allii 12 12 100 [24]
Polyvalent Pg125 Xanthomonas strains 52 52 100 [69]
Polyvalent Xcu-Pl X. campestris pv. cucurbitae, X. campestris pv. dieffembachiae, X. campestris pv. holcicola 38 26 68 [72]
Polyvalent Xcu-P3 X. campestris pv. cucurbitae, X. campestris pv. holcicola 38 17 45 [72]
Polyvalent Xve-P1 X. campestris pv. pruni, X. campestris pv. vesicatoria 38 9 24 [72]
Polyvalent Xca-P1 X. campestris pv. campestris, X. campestris pv. pruni 38 15 39 [72]
Polyvalent Xhol-P1 X. campestris pv. cucurbitae, X. campestris pv. holcicola 38 15 39 [72]
Polyvalent Xma-P1 X. campestris pv. cucurbitae, X. campestris pv. malvacearum 38 14 37 [72]
Polyvalent Xpr-P1 X. campestris pv. holcicola, X. campestris pv. pruni 38 15 39 [72]

X Xanthomonas; pv pathovar

The polyvalent Xathomonas phage Pg125, is lytic to multiple strains from 25 species within the genus Xanthomonas [69]. Others in this category include phage Xcu-Pl, Xcu-P3, Xve-P1, and Xca-P1 which are lytic to Xanthomonas campestris pathovars (Table 3). The varied host ranges demonstrated by Xanthomonas phages imply that these lytic viruses can offer viable plant disease management alternatives. The high level of host specificity minimizes the risk of phage attack on beneficial bacteria [50].

Biology: physiological parameters

Incubation temperature, storage temperature, storage media

Incubation temperature

Xanthomonas phages can maintain their viability over a wide incubation temperature range. For example, Xanthomonas phaseoli phages (1, 20, 22, ΦPS, ΦSD, ΦSL, ΦRS, Φ56, Φ112, Pg60) remain viable between 2 and 28 °C [74]; Xanthomonas pruni phages (Xp3-A and Xp3-I) and Xanthomonas oryzae phages (Xp12 and φXOF4) between 20 and 50 °C [15, 23, 81] and Xanthomonas euvesicatoria phages (Kϕ1- Kϕ 15) between 35 and 70 °C [50].

Storage temperature

The storage temperature of Xanthomonas phages differs between strains. The initial titer 4 × 107 pfu/ml of phage Kϕ1, is maintained for 6 months when stored at + 4 °C in nutrient broth, compared to storage at + 20 °C where it declines to 2 × 107 pfu/ml within the same period [82]. Similarly, the lytic activity of Xanthomonas trifolii phages is maintained for a month at + 4 °C in phosphate buffer, pH 7 [73]. On the contrary, Xanthomonas arboricora phages (P6, P11, P15, P16, P20) survive poorly at + 4 °C in double distilled water during a one-year storage period. The initial phage titer (1 × 108 pfu/ml) drops drastically to 1 × 103 pfu/ml. The same phages decline to 8 × 104 pfu/ml when maintained at − 34 °C in the same media [52]. Therefore, Xanthomonas phages are maintained longer when stored at + 4 °C in nutrient broth. The appropriate storage conditions for different phages should be determined in order to ensure longevity of their effectiveness during storage and prior to biocontrol applications [83].

Storage media, ionic strength and pH

Phage viability is dependent on the storage media, ionic strength and pH and these have to be optimal to ensure phage longevity.

Different types of storage media have been investigated to understand their effects on phage viability. SM buffer is a mixture of sodium chloride (100 mM), magnesium sulphate (10 mM), tris-HCL (50 mM, pH 7.5) and gelatin (0.01%). In addition to SM buffer is nutrient broth, water/chloroform (H2O-CHCl3) and nutrient broth/chloroform (NB-CHCl3) combinations [52]. The initial phage titer (1 × 1010 pfu/ml) of Xanthomonas arboricora phages drops to 1 × 106 pfu/ml in SM buffer and to 1 × 105 pfu/ml in nutrient broth and water/chloroform during a one-year period at + 4 °C. In addition, phage titers decline further down to 1 × 104 pfu/ml under nutrient/chloroform combination [52]. In other studies, nutrient broth and SM buffer are favorable storage media for phage viability at + 4 °C for long-term storage. For example, the initial titer, 8 × 1010 pfu/ml of phage Kϕ1 declines slightly to 8 × 109 pfu/ml in nutrient broth and SM buffer at + 4 °C during a three-week storage period [82]. Further decline in phage titer of 3 × 109 pfu/ml is detected in sterile tap water and 10 mM magnesium sulphate while in distilled water the titers sharply fall to 3 × 107 pfu/ml at the same storage temperature and period [82]. Therefore, SM buffer is a better medium for phage survival than nutrient broth, tap water, magnesium sulphate, water/chloroform and nutrient broth/chloroform combinations [52]. The right storage media type will preserve the structural integrity of the phage and retain their infectivity during long-term storage [83].

The effect of ionic strength (salt concentration in liquid media) and pH on phage viability has been studied for a few Xanthomonas phages. Xp12 and Cf, lytic activity is maintained in distilled water or 0.1 M phosphate buffer, pH 7.0. However, the ability of these phages to lyse bacterial cells is prevented when they are stored in normal saline (0.9% sodium chloride) or 0.1 M citrate phosphate buffer, pH 7.0 [67, 84]. The optimal pH of Xanthomonas phages is between 5 and 11, with a number of phages being stable in acidic conditions such as pH 4 [23, 67, 82, 85].

Ultraviolet irradiation and chloroform resistance

The phyllosphere is a hostile environment and many factors such as ultraviolet (UV) irradiation prevent phage persistence and survivability [86]. As with all phages, Xanthomonas phages are inactivated by UV light. Formulations that increase phage survival consist of milk, corn and sucrose, minimizing UV-induced damages that result from the production of thymine dimers [82, 87, 88].

Chloroform treatment during isolation and enrichment process is used to release phage and kill host bacteria [89]. With the exception of Xf and Cf, many Xanthomonas phages are resistant to chloroform treatment because they lack a lipid envelope that surrounds the capsid. The organic solvent disrupts lipid membranes and inactivates the phage [23, 50, 52, 74, 82, 90]. The ability to resist chloroform denaturation makes non-enveloped Xanthomonas phages easy to isolate, culture and maintained for long-term storage [88].

Biology: life cycle, replication parameters and molecular mechanisms

Life cycle

Generally, clear plaques on a bacterial lawn could suggest that phages may have lytic life cycles, while turbid plaques represent temperate life cycles [91]. Xanthomonas phages produce both lytic and turbid plaques (Table 4). The latter outcome is due to the absence of bacterial host lysis resulting from phage genome integration into host bacteria chromosomes, causing latent infection [27]. Genome integration is facilitated by host XerC/D recombinases that mediate site-specific recombination of the phage genome into a 15 base-pair dif locus of the bacterial genome [93, 98]. Unlike lytic phages, temperate phages are not suitable for use as biocontrol agents due to their ability to cause lysogenic conversion, induction of superinfection immunity and increased risk of horizontal gene transfer [83].

Table 4.

Life cycle of Xanthomonas phages

Phage Life cycle Host bacteria Reference
Cp1 Lytic X. axonopodis pv. citri [92]
Cp2 Lytic X. axonopodis pv. citri [92]
XP3-A Lytic X. pruni [15]
XP3-I Lytic X. pruni [15]
Kϕ1 Lytic X. euvesicatoria [50]
Kϕ8 Lytic X. euvesicatoria [50]
Kϕ15 Lytic X. euvesicatoria [50]
Kϕ1–9 and Kϕ15 Lytic X. euvesicatoria [50]
Xoo-sp2 Lytic X. oryzae pv. oryzae [30]
Xoo-sp1–15 Lytic X. oryzae pv. oryzae [30]
Xp12 Lytic X. oryzae pv. oryzae [81]
X1 Lytic X. oryzae pv. oryzae [31]
X2 Lytic X. oryzae pv. oryzae [31]
X3 Lytic X. oryzae pv. oryzae [31]
X4 Lytic X. oryzae pv. oryzae [31]
X5 Lytic X. oryzae pv. oryzae [31]
φXOF4,φXOF1,φXOF 2,φXOF3, φXOT1,φXOT2,φXOM1 Lytic X. oryzae pv. oryzae [23]
P4L, P4M, P6M, P6M1, P14M, P14M1, P18M, P23M1,P33M, P37L, P37M, P37M1, P41M, P43M, P45M, P47M, P50M, P53M, P54M, P57M, P58M, P60M, P61M, P62M, P66M, P68M, P70M, P71L, P72M, P8L, P27L, P30L, P59L, P73L Lytic X. oryzae pv. oryzae [22]
XTP1 Lytic X. campestris pv. campestris [71]
XC2 Lytic X. campestris pv. campestris [47]
Xcc9SH3 Lytic X. campestris pv. campestris [40]
P125 Lytic Xanthomonas sp. [69]
Xcu-P1 Lytic/Temperate X. campestris pv. cucurbitae [72]
Xcu-P3 Lytic/Temperate X. campestris pv. cucurbitae [72]
XholP1 Lytic/Temperate X. campestris pv. holcicola [72]
XmaP1 Lytic/Temperate X. campestris pv. malvacearum [72]
XcaP1 Lytic/Temperate X. campestris pv. campestris [72]
XprP1 Lytic/Temperate X. campestris pv. pruni [72]
XveP1 Lytic/Temperate X. campestris pv. vesicatoria [72]
P1 - P26 Lytic X. arboricola pv. juglandis [74]
1, 20, 22, ΦPS, ΦSD, ΦSL, ΦRS, Φ56, Φ112, Pg60 Lytic X. phaseoli [74]
Cf16 Temperate X. campestris pv. citri [93]
Cf1t Temperate X. campestris pv. citri [94]
Cf16v1 Temperate X. campestris pv. citri [90]
ϕLf Temperate X. campestris pv. campestris [95]
Cf1c Temperate X. campestris pv. citri [96]
XacF1 Temperate X. axonopodis pv. citri [20]
Xf109 Temperate X. oryzae pv. oryzae [97]
XaF13 Temperate X. vesicatoria [45]
Xf Temperate/carrier state X. oryzae pv. oryzae [68]
Cf Temperate/carrier state X. citri [84]
ϕL7 Lytic X. campestris pv. campestris [95]

X Xanthomonas; pv pathovar; sp species

During adsorption, Xanthomonas phages bind to different bacteria host cell surface receptors [99]. The adsorption of phage ΦL7 onto Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris requires binding to a complex receptor consisting of lipopolysaccharide and a secondary protein on the outer membrane.

Other filamentous phages such as Cf use the host pili (pilR) to bind to Xanthomonas campestris pv. citri [94, 100]. The phage then penetrates using chaperon proteins such as, TonB, ExbB, and ExbD1 encoded by operon, tonB–exbB–exbD1–exbD2 [101, 102]. The host bacteria are lysed by peptidoglycan glycohydrolase, which is located in the phage tail [103].

Replication parameters

The replication of phages is studied using the one-step growth experiment which measures the latent period and burst size of a phage on a specific bacterium. These are essential parameters in the description of phage properties. The latent period is the period between initial phage adsorption to a host cell to lysis and release of progeny viruses [91]. Xanthomonas phages have short latent periods ranging from 20 to 45 min to moderate periods, 60 to 90 min (Table 5). Very long latent periods ranging from 120 to 210 min occur for P125, Xoo-sp2, Xp12 (Siphorividae) and XTP (Myoviridae) (Table 5). The burst sizes range from 4.6 to 350 virions per infected cell (pfu/cell), with P125 showing the lowest burst size (4.6 pfu/cell) and Xoo-sp2 with the highest burst size (350 pfu/cell) (Table 5).

Table 5.

Replication parameters of studied Xanthomonas phages

Phage Host Bacterium Family Latent Period (Min) Burst size (pfu/cell) MOI Phage Adsorption Temperature Time (min) Reference
Cp1 X. axonopodis pv. citri Siphoviridae 60 20 1 28 °C 10 [92]
Cp2 X. axonopodis pv. citri Podoviridae 90 100 1 28 °C 10 [92]
P5 X. axonopodis pv. citri n/a 40 60% n/a 25 °C 20 [83]
Xp3-A X. pruni n/a 30–45 42–49 0.1 27 °C 20 [15]
Xp3-I X. pruni n/a 60–75 176–256 0.1 27 °C 20 [15]
Kϕ1 X. euvesicatoria Myoviridae 20 75+/−4 0.1 27 °C 5 [50]
Kϕ8 X. euvesicatoria Myoviridae 30 74+/−22 0.1 27 °C 5 [50]
Kϕ15 X. euvesicatoria Myoviridae 30 70+/−11 0.1 27 °C 5 [50]
Xoo-sp2 X. oryzae pv. oryzae Siphoviridae 180 350 0.1 28 °C 10 [30]
Xp12 X. oryzae pv. oryzae Siphoviridae 140 35 0.1 28 °C - [81]
X1 X. oryzae pv. oryzae Myoviridae 20 88 10 30 °C 15 [31]
X2 X. oryzae pv. oryzae Myoviridae 20 88 0.001 30 °C 15 [31]
X3 X. oryzae pv. oryzae Myoviridae 40 50 0.01 30 °C 15 [31]
X4 X. oryzae pv. oryzae Myoviridae 20 75 1 30 °C 15 [31]
X5 X. oryzae pv. oryzae Myoviridae 20 100 1 30 °C 15 [31]
φXOF4 X. oryzae pv. oryzae Siphoviridae 20–30 1.8 × 107 pfu/ml 0.1 28 °C 10 [23]
XTP1 X. campestris pv. campestris Myoviridae 120 30–35 1 30 °C 15 [71]
X. phaseoli phage X. phaseoli Siphoviridae 30–45 40 n/a 22 °C 25 [104]
P125 Xanthomonas sp. Siphoviridae 210 4.6 n/a 27 °C 30 [69]

X, Xanthomonas; sp., species; (n/a) not available in literature; min, minutes; MOI, multiplicity of infection; pfu, plaque forming unit; %, percentage; ml, milimeters

The multiplicity of infection (MOI) of reported Xanthomonas phages lie between 0.001 to 1, with the lowest observed for phage X2 at 0.001, and highest for X4, X5 and XTP1 at 1 (Table 5). It has been reported that phages with short latent period and high burst size have more efficient replication cycles [105]. Also, the optimal temperature and incubation time are essential parameters during phage adsorption. These conditions range between 22 and 30 °C, while incubation times are between 5 and 30 min for Xanthomonas phages (Table 5).

Molecular mechanisms

Phage-bacterial infection induces molecular changes that include DNA methylation, phosphorylation and transcription. DNA methylation is well-studied in phage Xp12 [81]. Upon infection in Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae, Xp12 induces biosynthesis of an unusual base, 5-methylcytosine, that replaces all cytosine residues in the DNA of Xp12 [81]. The rest of the bases; adenine, thymine, and guanine, remain unaltered [67, 81]. DNA methylation confers unique physical and chemical properties upon Xp12 DNA i.e., acquisition of a low buoyant density and high melting temperature, compared to typical DNA [106]. The Xp12 phage-infected bacterial cells produce an enzyme deoxycytidylate methyltransferase, that catalyzes the direct methylation of deoxycytidine monophosphate (dCMP) to 5-methylcytosine, in the presence of tetrahydrofolic acid [107, 108].

Modification of phosphorylation occurs during Xanthomonas phage infection. When Xp12 infects Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae, phosphorylation of three proteins is induced. The phosphorylated proteins 28 kDa, 28.5 kDa and 45 kDa in size are present only on infected cells. This type of molecular modification is suggestive of the existence of a phage specific regulatory mechanism involved during phage infection [109].

Transcriptional modifications are initiated upon phage-bacterial infection. In phage Xp10, infecting Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae displays complete loss of transcription activity due deactivation of host RNA polymerase resulting from dissociation of the δ subunit from the host core RNA polymerase [110]. Later studies show that Xp10 reverts the transcription process by encoding an anti-termination factor p7 that allows formation of RNA transcripts by host RNA polymerase [111].

Biocontrol applications of Xanthomonas phages

This section explores several approaches where Xanthomonas phages are employed as biocontrol agents to manage Xanthomonas species in either greenhouse or field conditions. These methods have been successful at either inhibiting Xanthomonas growth or reducing disease severity. These include, but are not limited to use of monophages or cocktail treatments, phage mixtures with non-pathogenic or with pathogenic bacteria, phage combinations with antibiotics or plant inducers, UV- protectants and phage mutants [16, 21, 24, 30, 88, 112, 113].

To date, two Xanthomonas phage-based products are commercially available for the biocontrol of tomato, pepper spot and citrus canker [25]. The earliest evidence of Xanthomonas phage application was published in the early nineteenth century by Mallmann & Hemstreet [13], who determined that filtrate from decomposing cabbage applied to rotting cabbage inhibits the growth of Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris in infected tissue. Since then, other forms of phage mixtures have been investigated.

Civerolo [114] applied crude lysates of lytic phage cocktail (Xp3-A and Xp3-I) on peach seedling foliage, 1–2 h before infection with Xanthomonas pruni under greenhouse conditions. Only 6–8% of leaves were infected, and the disease significantly reduced to 17–31% compared with 96% recorded on the water-treated control plants. In addition, application of either Xp3-A or Xp3-I mixed with Xanthomonas pruni and applied immediately before pathogen inoculation resulted in a 51–54% decrease of bacterial spot symptoms in peach seedlings under similar environmental settings. Therefore, the use of the phage cocktail significantly reduced disease severity better than single phage-pathogen mixture. This could be due to the synergy between the replication characteristics of both phages in the cocktail i.e. the latent period of Xp3-A and Xp3-I is 30–45 min and 60–75 min, whereas the burst size is 42–49 and 176–256 pfu/cell [114].

Some studies disagree with the evidence that supports the benefits provided by cocktail phage biocontrol of Xanthomonas associated diseases. In a recent study [24], spray application of a purified phage cocktail made up of three phages (ɸ16, ɸ17A, ɸ31) failed to inhibit the growth Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. allii, the causative agent of bacterial leaf blight of welsh onions. The cocktail treatment reduced infection of onion leaves to 43.3%, while a monophage phage treatment consisting ɸ31 reduced to 26.6% compared to the untreated, infected control leaves at 67.5% at 9 days after inoculation. Phage ɸ31, family Autographiviridae, had the broadest spectrum and lysed 12 out of 12 Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. allii strains, a trait that may contribute to its biological efficacy [24].

In another study [23], the phage φXOF4 inhibited the growth of Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae that causes bacterial leaf blight. The seedlings treated with φXOF4 at a titer of 1 × 108 pfu/ml showed no symptoms compared to 73% of the untreated group. Phage φXOF4, Siphoviridae, exhibited a broad host range where it lysed 6 out of 6 Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae strains and had a short latent period between 20 and 30 min and a burst size that yields to the titer 1.8 × 107 pfu/ml. There is preference for cocktail phages because of their ability to effectively control pathogenic strains and delay the emergence of resistant strains [115, 116]; however, studies [23, 24] support the evidence that monophage treatment can be effective at disease reduction or elimination.

Applications of premixed phage-pathogen suspensions are further demonstrated by Dong [30], who observed low treatment outcomes in rice plants treated with Xoo-sp2 and Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae suspension. The average lesion length in treated plants was 13.31 ± 1.69 cm compared to two control groups treated in sterile water (20.83 ± 2.43 cm) or skimmed milk (19.29 ± 2.07 cm). Phage Xoo-sp2 (Siphoviridae) had a broad host range where it lysed 9 out of 10 Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae strains and had a latent period of 180 min and burst size of 350 pfu/cell. Although the authors considered only Xoo-sp2 out of the 15 phages, a phage cocktail should have been considered to improve biocontrol efficacy since the remaining phages displayed equally a broad host range where they lysed 9 out of 10 of the same strains.

Alternative control approaches using non-pathogenic bacteria and phage suspensions are demonstrated by Nagai [112]. The combination of non-pathogenic Xanthomonas strain (npX, AXCB1201) and phage (pXS, XcpSFC211) was sprayed on broccoli plants before inoculation of Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris. The npX-pXS mixture significantly reduced disease severity to 18.9% compared with 86.2% by pXS alone and 93.7% of water-treated control plants in greenhouse settings. Field trials showed a decrease in disease severity albeit lower than the results from the greenhouse experiments. The npX-pXS mixture reduced the symptoms by 74% compared to 98% of water treated control plants or 86% of copper treated plants [112].

Integration of Xanthomonas phages with antimicrobials or UV-protectants has been explored as a disease management option. Borah [117] found that the combination of phage (XMP-1) and antibiotic (streptomycin) suppressed leaf spot of mungbean caused by Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. vignaeradiatae to 4% compared with 68% of the untreated seedlings. Moreover, seed germination increased to 86% in comparison to 75% in the untreated group. Furthermore, Balogh [88] applied formulated phages on tomato plants infected with bacterial spot incited by Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria. The phages were mixed with either 0.5% pregelatinized cornflour (PCF), casecrete NH-400 with 0.25% PCF, or 0.75% powdered skim milk with 0.5% sucrose. Phage treatment improved plant yield by 62% (skim milk), 51% (Casecrete), and 30% (PCF) compared to unformulated phages at 1% in greenhouse experiments. Under field experiments, phage treatment increased plant yield by 18% (skim milk), 32% (casecrete) and 23% (PCF) compared to unformulated phages at 14%. Therefore, skim milk gave better results in greenhouse experiments while casecrete performed better in the field. Similarly, Tewfike and Shimaa [66] found that formulated phages in skim milk controlled better bacterial halo blight symptoms of pepper caused by Xanthomonas axonopodis than with corn flour by 20.5 and 18.3% in the greenhouse and 19.5 and 32.2% in field conditions.

Some studies have shown that unformulated phages can control better plant diseases. Balogh [19] applied unformulated phages to citrus leaves infected with asiatic citrus canker and recorded an average of 59% reduction in disease severity in five greenhouse experiments. The same phage mixture in skim milk was not effective at controlling disease under similar environmental settings. In nursery experiments, unformulated phage treatment also reduced disease, but was less effective than copper-mancozeb, a chemical bactericide. Moreover, mixing the unformulated phages with copper-mancozeb achieved comparable results to unformulated phages alone [19]. Therefore different field settings (greenhouse, open field and nursery beds) should be considered during biocontrol studies because there is a possibility that phage efficacy depends on the field settings.

Plant inducers successfully control plant diseases, and therefore form an integral part of disease management practices. The application of mixtures of phages in skim milk/sucrose with Acibenzolar-S-methyl (ASM), a plant inducer, decrease the bacterial spot of tomato caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria under field conditions. The fruit yield of the formulated phage/ASM mixture was 67.9% compared to 60.8% of untreated control when applied twice biweekly in the first year [113]. Equally, Ibrahim [21] applied mixtures containing ASM and phages in skim milk/sucrose on citrus leaves for 4 days triweekly before inoculation of Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri, causative agent of asiatic citrus canker. Disease severity was reduced to 18.3% compared to 75.2% of the untreated control under greenhouse conditions. This observation agrees with results from field experiments where ASM/phages in skim milk/sucrose reduced disease to 12.5%, compared to 70.2% of the untreated control. When ASM was applied alone in the soil by drenching method, the disease was reduced to 38.2%, compared to 74.3% of the water-treated group after spraying 7 times triweekly before pathogen inoculation.

Mutated phages in formulations provide modest protection against plant disease compared with unformulated phages. The h-mutant phage mixtures (PMh; P4L, P43M, P23M1) in skim milk reduced bacterial blight disease of rice incited by Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae to 18.1%, and wild type phage mixtures (PM; P4L, P43M, and P23M1) in the same formulation reduced the disease to 19.2%, compared to 39.1% of the untreated group. The mixtures were sprayed three times within an interval of 10 days. These tailed phages belong to the family Myoviridae and possess broad host range properties. Phage P4L lysed 33 out of 47, while P43M and P23M1 lysed 47 out of 47 Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae strains [22]. Treatment with tecloftalam wettable powder, an agrochemical, demonstrated better results, with the disease symptoms reduced to 5% [22]. Therefore integration of tecloftalam wettable powder in plant protection could be a promising strategy for managing bacterial blight disease. On the contrary, agrochemicals have proved to be less effective than phages in controlling plant diseases. In a two-year greenhouse experiment, formulated phage DB1 in skim milk demonstrated improved black rot control by 71.1% while copper-based pesticide by 59.1%. Thus black rot caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. campestris on cabbage seedlings can be successfully controlled by phage application [49].

Unformulated mutants reduce disease severity in infected plants. Flaherty [16] applied a mixture of host range mutant phages on tomato seedlings infected with Xanthomonas campestris pv. vesicatoria and symptoms of bacterial spot of tomato reduced to 0.9% compared to 40.5% of the untreated in the greenhouse. It increased the total weight of extra-large fruit by 14.9 and 24.2% in 1997 and 1998, respectively. Similarly, the severity of geranium bacterial blight declined when unformulated phage mutant mixtures were applied daily by foliar sprays on potted and seedling geraniums in greenhouse conditions [17].

Biofilm degradation is essential for the control of bacterial pathogenicity. The phage X3 causes 53% degradation of exopolysaccharide production and 43% biofilm degradation caused by Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae that causes bacterial blight of rice [31]. When phage X3 was sprayed on rice plant foliage and seeds before pathogen inoculation, the plants improved by 83.1 and 95.4%. The phage X3 did not perform well when applied after pathogen inoculation, with results recorded between 28.9 and 73.9% [31]. Phage X3, family Myoviridae, had the broadest host range, lysed 22 out of the 23 Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae strains tested and had the most extended latent period of 40 min with a burst size of 50 pfu/cell [31]. Likewise, infection of XacF1 (Inoviridae), a temperate phage, pathogenic to Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri, causing asiatic citrus canker, inhibits xanthan production, a component of extracellular polysaccharide that exacerbates the disease. The lesions on leaves sprayed with XacF1 reduced to 1 mm in width compared to 6.5 mm in untreated leaves. Therefore, the reduction in xanthan production caused by XacF1 phage reduces disease symptoms [20].

The frequency of phage spray and contact time on plant surfaces are factors investigated to improve the efficacy of phage applications. Lang [18] showed that multiple applications, i.e. biweekly or weekly applications of phages, effectively reduce symptoms of leaf blight of onion caused by Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. allii to 50%. Similar results were obtained when copper hydroxide-mancozeb was sprayed weekly on onion plants. Furthermore, biweekly application of Acibenzolar-S-methyl and phages reduced the disease by up to 50%. Hence, biweekly spray schedules are a promising strategy for sustainable control of leaf blight of onion.

Successful control of plant diseases is directly linked to the contact time of phages on plant surfaces. Gašić [82] successfully controlled bacterial pepper spot caused by Xanthomonas euvesicatoria by allowing a long contact time of phage Kϕ1 (Myoviridae) on plant leaves. The longest time of phage contact was 2 h before and 15 min after pathogen inoculation. This resulted in an average lesion number of 157, 213, and 189 compared to 332, 422, and 567 of the untreated control in three greenhouse experiments. The contact time experiments were further tested on copper hydroxide mixed with Kϕ1. At a contact time of 26 h before pathogen inoculation, a significant reduction in average lesion number was observed with scores of 63, 41, and 66 compared to 332, 422, and 567 of the untreated control. Thus longer contact time of phage Kϕ1 on plant surfaces allows effective control of pepper bacterial spot. There is a direct relationship between the timing of phage application and the efficacy of disease control. Evening applications of phage on foliage achieve better disease control since this period minimizes phage exposure to UV irradiation and extends phage longevity [88]. Phage Kϕ1 had the broadest host range where it lysed 59 out of 59 Xanthomonas euvesicatoria strains [50] and had a latent period and burst size of 20 min and 75 phage particles per infected cell respectively. Its multiplication and broad lytic abilities may contribute to its success at managing pepper bacterial spot.

The study of phage lysins as alternative biocontrol for Xanthomonas phytopathogens is rarely reported. One study has shown that phage lysozyme, Lys411, encoded by the genome of Xanthomonas oryzae phage, ϕXo411, can lyse Xanthomonas strains, making the protein a candidate with potential to control plant diseases caused by Xanthomonas [118].

One of the limitations faced by plant-based phage application is the hostile environment of the phyllosphere, where phages degrade rapidly due to desiccation or UV light. Phage formulations demonstrate protective benefits that enhance phage longevity and antibacterial activity [19, 88]; however, not all phages are effective in UV protectants [19]. Although, leaf surfaces of some plants do support phage multiplications, others do not; and this could potentially have adverse effects on the efficacy of a biocontrol product. Balogh [119] found that two Xanthomonas perforans phages (ɸXv3–21 and ɸXp06–02) multiplied and maintained populations on tomato leaf surface but did not achieve the same level of multiplication on grapefruit leaves. More research is needed to understand plant compounds involved and the mechanisms involved in this plant-phage interaction.

Conclusion

Several Xanthomonas phages are evaluated for their potential as biocontrol agents against Xanthomonas species. So far, most of these belong to order Caudovirales and are lytic to a broad range of host strains. They are isolated from diverse ecosystems and distributed across the globe depending on the presence of the pathogen they infect. Their structural integrity and functionality in in vitro conditions is maintained under optimal growth and storage conditions. Pathogenesis of Xanthomonas phages in bacteria induce molecular alterations that may have regulatory functions important during their life cycle. Although few studies have focused on this aspect of biology, more research is needed to understand their life cycle.

From their first discovery in filtrates to applications as phage/pathogen suspensions, or in combination with other antimicrobials or with UV-protectants or as cocktail/monophage treatments, phages have proved to be promising alternatives to agrochemicals and antibiotics. They can reduce disease severity or inhibit bacteria growth in diverse field settings. So far, two Xanthomonas phage-based biocontrol products are commercially available for plant disease control. As the transition into commercial products continues, more studies are needed to tap into the many unexploited potentials of Xanthomonas phages for a range of Xanthomonas related plant diseases.

Supplementary Information

12866_2021_2351_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (21.5KB, xlsx)

Additional file 1 : Table S1 Taxonomic classification, genomic properties and host bacteria of Xanthomonas phages. Description of data: Xanthomonas phages of order Caudovirales and Tubulavirales, their morphological and genomic properties and host bacteria.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge Ms. Elizabeth Katigo for language editing of the manuscript.

Abbreviations

ICTV

International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses

nm

Nanometer

DNA

Deoxyribonucleic acid

GC

Guanine-Cytosine

ORF

Open Reading Frame

nts

Nucleotides

%

Percentage

pH

Potential of Hydrogen

NB

Nutrient broth

H2O

Water

CHCl3

Chloroform

M

Molarity

UV

Ultraviolet light

PFU

Plaque Forming Units

MOI

Multiplicity of Infection

dCMP

Deoxycytidine monophosphate

kDa

Kilodalton

min

Minutes

Authors’ contributions

RN, conceptualized, designed the framework, wrote and proof read the manuscript. AM modified format and proof read the manuscript. VT and WT provided critical feedback that helped shape the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Authors’ information

RN, PhD, Lecturer, Department of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, Kyambogo University, P.O. Box 1, Kyambogo, Uganda.

AM, PhD, Post-Doctoral Fellow, Department of Animal and Human Health, General Biosciences, International Livestock Research Institute, P.O. Box 3070, Nairobi 00100, Kenya.

VT, PhD, Lecturer, Department of Agriculture, Faculty of Vocational Studies, Kyambogo University, P.O. Box 1, Kyambogo, Uganda.

WT, PhD, Senior Lecturer, Department of Agriculture, Faculty of Vocational Studies, Kyambogo University, P.O. Box 1, Kyambogo, Uganda.

Funding

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

All data considered during this review is presented within the manuscript and in the additional supporting file.

Declaration

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Jun SR, Sims GE, Wu GA, Kim SH. Whole-proteome phylogeny of prokaryotes by feature frequency profiles: an alignment-free method with optimal feature resolution. PNAS. 2010;107(1):133–138. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0913033107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ryan RP, Vorhölter FJ, Potnis N, Jones JB, Van Sluys MA, Bogdanove AJ, Dow JM. Pathogenomics of Xanthomonas: understanding bacterium-plant interactions. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011;9:344–355. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.An SQ, Potnis N, Dow M, Vorhölter FJ, He YQ, Becker A, Teper D, Li Y, Wang N, Bleris L, Tang JL. Mechanistic insights into host adaptation, virulence and epidemiology of the phytopathogen Xanthomonas. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2019;44(1):1–32. doi: 10.1093/femsre/fuz024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Petrocelli S, Tondo ML, Daurelio LD, Orellano EG. Modifications of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri lipopolysaccharide affect the basal response and the virulence process during citrus canker. PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e40051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 5.Pradhan BB, Ranjan M, Chatterjee S. XadM, a novel adhesin of Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzae, exhibits similarity to Rhs family proteins and is required for optimum attachment, biofilm formation, and virulence. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2012;25(9):1157–1170. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-02-12-0049-R. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Dunger G, Guzzo CR, Andrade MO, Jones JB, Farah CS. Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri type IV pilus is required for twitching motility, biofilm development, and adherence. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2014;27(10):1132–1147. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-06-14-0184-R. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Crossman L, Dow JM. Biofilm formation and dispersal in Xanthomonas campestris. Microbes Infect. 2004;6(6):623–629. doi: 10.1016/j.micinf.2004.01.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Biruma M, Pillay M, Tripathi L, Blomme G, Abele S, Mwangi M, Bandyopadhyay R, Muchunguzi P, Kassim S, Nyine M, Turyagyenda L, Eden-Green S. Banana Xanthomonas wilt: a review of the disease, management strategies and future research directions. Afr J Biotechnol. 2007;6(8):953–962. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Sundin GW, Wang N. Antibiotic resistance in plant-pathogenic bacteria. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2018;56:161–180. doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-080417-045946. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.La Torre A, Iovino V, Caradonia F. Copper in plant protection: current situation and prospects. Phytopathol Mediterr. 2018;57(2):201–236. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Altamirano FLG, Barr JJ. Phage therapy in the postantibiotic era. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2019;32(2):e00066–e00018. doi: 10.1128/CMR.00066-18. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Doss J, Culbertson K, Hahn D, Camacho J, Barekzi N. A review of phage therapy against bacterial pathogens of aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Viruses. 2017;9(3):50. doi: 10.3390/v9030050. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mallmann WL, Hemstreet C. Isolation of an inhibitory substance from plants. J Agric Res. 1924;28(6):599–602. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Civerolo EL, Kiel HL. Inhibition of bacterial spot of peach foliage by Xanthomonas pruni bacteriophage. Phytopathol. 1969;59:1966–1967. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Civerolo EL. Comparative relationships between two Xanthomonas pruni bacteriophages and their bacterial host. Phytopathol. 1970;60:1385–1386. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Flaherty JE, Jones JB, Harbaugh BK, Somodi GC, Jackson LE. Control of bacterial spot on tomato in the greenhouse and field with H-mutant bacteriophages. HortScience. 2000;35:882–884. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Flaherty JE, Harbaugh BK, Jones JB, Somodi GC, Jackson LE. H-mutant bacteriophages as a potential biocontrol of bacterial blight of geranium. HortScience. 2001;36(1):98–100. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lang JM, Gent DH, Schwartz HF. Management of Xanthomonas leaf blight of onion with bacteriophages and a plant activator. Plant Dis. 2007;91:871–878. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-91-7-0871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Balogh B, Canteros BI, Stall RE, Jones JB. Control of citrus canker and citrus bacterial spot with bacteriophages. Plant Dis. 2008;92(7):1048–1052. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-92-7-1048. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ahmad AA, Askora A, Kawasaki T, Fujie M, Yamada T. The filamentous phage XacF1 causes loss of virulence in Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri, the causative agent of citrus canker disease. Front. Microbiol. 2014a;5:321. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 21.Ibrahim YE, Saleh AA, Al-Saleh MA. Management of asiatic citrus canker under field conditions in Saudi Arabia using bacteriophages and acibenzolar-S-methyl. Plant Dis. 2017;101(5):761–5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 22.Chae JC, Hung NB, Yu SM, Lee HK, Lee YH. Diversity of bacteriophages infecting Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzae in paddy fields and its potential to control bacterial leaf blight of rice. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014;24(6):740–747. doi: 10.4014/jmb.1402.02013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Ranjani P, Gowthami Y, Gnanamanickam SS, Palani P. Bacteriophages: a new weapon for the control of bacterial blight disease in rice caused by Xanthomonas oryzae. Microbiol Biotechnol Lett. 2018;46(4):346–359. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Nga NTT, Tran TN, Holtappels D, Kim Ngan NL, Hao NP, Vallino M, Tien DTK, Khanh-Pham NH, Lavigne R, Kamei K, Wagemans J, Jones JB. Phage biocontrol of bacterial leaf blight disease on welsh onion caused by Xanthomonas axonopodis pv allii. Antibiotics. 2021;10:517. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics10050517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.OmniLytics. Sandy, Utah. 2021. https://www.omnilytics.com/ . Accessed 8 Mar 2021.
  • 26.Walker PJ, Siddell SG, Lefkowitz EJ, Mushegian AR, Adriaenssens EM, Dempsey DM, et al. Changes to virus taxonomy and the statutes ratified by the international committee on taxonomy of viruses. Arch Virol. 2020;165:2737–2748. doi: 10.1007/s00705-020-04752-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ackermann HW. Tailed bacteriophages: the order Caudovirales. Adv Virus Res. 1998;51:135–201. doi: 10.1016/S0065-3527(08)60785-X. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.King AMQ, Adams MJ, Carstens EB, Lefkowitz EJ. Virus taxonomy. Ninth report of the international committee on taxonomy of viruses. 1st ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lee CN, Hu RM, Chow TY, Lin JW, Chen HY, Tseng YH, Weng SF. Comparison of genomes of three Xanthomonas oryzae bacteriophages. BMC Genomics. 2007;8:442. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-8-442. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Dong Z, Xing S, Liu J, Tang X, Ruan L, Sun M, Tong Y, Peng D. Isolation and characterization of a novel phage Xoo-sp2 that infects Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzae. J. Gen. Virol. 2018;99(10):1453–1462. doi: 10.1099/jgv.0.001133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ogunyemi SO, Chen J, Zhang M, Wang L, Masum MMI, Yan C, An Q, Li B, Chen J. Identification and characterization of five new OP2-related Myoviridae bacteriophages infecting different strains of Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzae. J. Plant Pathol. 2019;101:263–273. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MT939492. Accessed 20 May 2021.
  • 33.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN047793. Accessed 10 Mar 2021.
  • 34.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/KY853667. Accessed 10 Mar 2021.
  • 35.Kuo TT, Huang TC, Wu RY, Yang CM. Characterization of three bacteriophages of Xanthomonas oryzae (Uyeda et Ishiyama) Dowson. Bot Bull Acad Sinica. 1967;8:246–254. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MF375456. Accessed 10 Mar 2021.
  • 37.Yoshikawa G, Askora A, Blanc-Mathieu R, Kawasaki T, Li Y, Nakano M, Ogata H, Yamada T. Xanthomonas citri jumbo phage XacN1 exhibits a wide host range and high complement of tRNA genes. Sci Rep. 2018;8:4486. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-22239-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MT951568. Accessed 20 May 2021.
  • 39.Kovács T, Molnár J, Varga I, Nagy IK, Valappil SK, Papp S, Vera Cruz CM, Oliva R, Vizi T, Schneider G, Rákhely G. Complete Ggenome Ssequences of 10 Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzae bacteriophages. Microbiol. Resour. Announc. 2019;8(27):e00334–e00319. doi: 10.1128/MRA.00334-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Renu BMS, Singh UB. Sahu U, Nagrale DT, Sahu PK. Characterization of lytic bacteriophage XCC9SH3 infecting Xanthomonas campestris pv. Campestris. J. Plant Pathol. 2017;99(1):47–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Harshitha KN, Manoranjitham SK, Somasundaram E, Rajendran L, Karthikeyan G. Characterization of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. punicae (Hingorani and Singh) Vauterin et al. and isolation of Xap specific bacteriophage. Madras Agric. J. 2018;105(4–6):210. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Russo M, Le T, Moreland R, Gonzalez CF, Liu M, Ramsey J. Complete genome sequence of Xanthomonas phage pagan. Microbiol. Resour. Announc. 2019;8(39):e01031–e01019. doi: 10.1128/MRA.01031-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MK512531. Accessed 10 Mar 2021.
  • 44.Miller M, Deiulio A, Holland C, Douthitt C, McMahon J, Wiersma-Koch H, Turechek WW, D'Elia T. Complete genome sequence of Xanthomonas phage river rider, a novel N4-like bacteriophage that infects the strawberry pathogen Xanthomonas fragariae. Arch Virol. 2020;165:1481–1484. doi: 10.1007/s00705-020-04614-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Solis-Sanchez A, Quinones-Aguilar E, Vega-Arreguin J, Fraire-Velazquez S, Rincon-Enriquez G. Complete genome sequence of XaF13 a novel bacteriophage of Xanthomonas vesicatoria from Mexico. Microbiol Resour Announc. 2020;9(5):e01371–e01319. doi: 10.1128/MRA.01371-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN461279. Accessed 10 Mar 2021.
  • 47.da Silva FP, Xavier AD, Bruckner FP, de Rezende RR, Vidigal PMP, Alfenas-Zerbini P. Biological and molecular characterization of a bacteriophage infecting Xanthomonas campestris pv. Campestris, isolated from brassica fields. Arch. Virol. 2019;164(7):1857–1862. doi: 10.1007/s00705-019-04263-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Retamales J, Vasquez I, Santos L, Segovia C, Ayala M, Alvarado R, Nunez P, Santander J. Complete genome sequences of lytic bacteriophages of Xanthomonas arboricola pv. Juglandis. Genome Announc. 2016;4(3):e00336–e00316. doi: 10.1128/genomeA.00336-16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Orynbayev AT, Dzhalilov FSU, Ignatov AN. Improved efficacy of formulated bacteriophage in control of black rot caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. Campestris on cabbage seedlings. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2020;53:379–394. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Gašić K, Ivanović MM, Ignjatov M, Calić A, Obradović A. Isolation and characterization of Xanthomonas euvesicatoria bacteriophages. J Plant Pathol. 2011;93(2):415–423. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.McNeil DL, Romero S, Kandula J, Stark C, Stewart A, Larsen S. Bacteriophages as a potential biocontrol agent against walnut blight (Xanthomonas campestris pv. Juglandis). N. Z. Plant Prot. 2001;54:220–224. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Romero-Suarez S, Jordan B, Heinemann JA. Isolation and characterization of bacteriophages infecting Xanthomonas arboricola pv. Juglandis, the causal agent of walnut blight disease. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2012;28(5):1917–1927. doi: 10.1007/s11274-011-0992-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MW802488. Accessed 20 May 2021.
  • 54.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MW822535. Accessed 20 May 2021.
  • 55.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MW822536. Accessed 20 May 2021.
  • 56.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MW822537. Accessed 20 May 2021.
  • 57.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MW822538. Accessed 20 May 2021.
  • 58.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MW822539. Accessed 20 May 2021.
  • 59.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MT161387. Accessed 20 May 2021.
  • 60.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MT161386. Accessed 20 May 2021.
  • 61.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MT161384. Accessed 20 May 2021.
  • 62.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MT161383. Accessed 20 May 2021.
  • 63.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MT161382. Accessed 20 May 2021.
  • 64.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MT161381. Accessed 20 May 2021.
  • 65.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MT161385. Accessed 20 May 2021.
  • 66.Tewfike TA, Shimaa MD. Biocontrol of Xanthomonas axonopodis causing bacterial spot by application of formulated phage. Ann Agric Sci Moshtohor. 2015;53(4):615–624. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Kuo TT, Huang TC, Wu RY, Chen CP. Phage Xp12 of Xanthomonas oryzae (Uyeda et Ishiyama) Dowson. Can J Microbiol. 1968;14(10):1139–1142. doi: 10.1139/m68-190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Kuo TT, Huang TC, Chow TY. A filamentous bacteriophage from Xanthomonas oryzae. Virology. 1969;39(3):548–555. doi: 10.1016/0042-6822(69)90102-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Sutton MD, Katznelson H, Quadling C. A bacteriophage that attacks numerous phytopathogenic Xanthomonas species. Can J Microbiol. 1958;4(5):493–497. doi: 10.1139/m58-053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Papaianni M, Cuomo P, Fulgione A, Albanese D, Gallo M, Paris D, Motta A, Iannelli D, Capparelli R. Bacteriophages promote metabolic changes in bacteria biofilm. Microorganisms. 2020;8(4):480. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8040480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Weiss BD, Capage MA, Kessel M, Benson SA. Isolation and characterization of a generalized transducing phage for Xanthomonas campestris pv. Campestris. J. Bacteriol. 1994;176(11):3354–3359. doi: 10.1128/jb.176.11.3354-3359.1994. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Alippi AM. Host range and particle morphology of some bacteriophages affecting pathovars of Xanthomonas campestris. Microbiologia. 1989;5(1):35–43. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.James N, Roslycky EB. Specificity of bacterial virus for Xanthomonas trifolii. Can J Microbiol. 1956;2(1):6–11. doi: 10.1139/m56-002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Vidaver AK, Schuster ML. Characterization of Xanthomonas phaseoli bacteriophages. J Virol. 1969;4(3):300–308. doi: 10.1128/jvi.4.3.300-308.1969. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Sutton MD, Wallen VR. Phage types of Xanthomonas phaseoli isolated from beans. Can J Bot. 1967;45(2):267–280. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Clark S, Le T, Moreland R, Liu M, Gonzalez CF, Gill JJ, Ramsey J. Complete genome sequence of Xanthomonas siphophage Samson. Microbiol. Resour. Announc. 2019;8(42):e01097–e01019. doi: 10.1128/MRA.01097-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Ackermann HW, DuBow MS. "Phage multiplication". In: viruses of prokaryotes: general properties of bacteriophages, Ackermann HW, DuBow MS, editors. BocaRaton, Florida: CRC Press, Inc; 1987.p.49–85.
  • 78.Weinbauer MG. Ecology of prokaryotic viruses. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2004;28(2):127–181. doi: 10.1016/j.femsre.2003.08.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Mathew J, Patel PN. Host specific bacteriophages of Xanthomonas vesicatoria. J Phytopathol. 1979;94:3–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Wakimoto S. Classification of strains of Xanthomonas oryzae on the basis of their susceptibility against bacteriophages. J J Phytopathol. 1960;25(4):193–198. [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Kuo TT, Huang TC, Teng MH. 5-Methylcytosine replacing cytosine in the deoxyribonucleic acid of a bacteriophage for Xanthomonas oryzae. J Mol Biol. 1968;34:373–375. doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(68)90263-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Gašić K, Kuzmanović N, Ivanović M, Prokić A, Šević M, Obradović A. Complete genome of the Xanthomonas euvesicatoria specific bacteriophage KΦ1, its survival and potential in control of pepper bacterial spot. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2021. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Gill J, Hyman P. Phage choice, isolation, and preparation for phage therapy. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2010;11(1):2–14. doi: 10.2174/138920110790725311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Dai H, Chiang KS, Kuo TT. Characterization of a new filamentous phage Cf from Xanthomonas citri. J Gen Virol. 1980;46:277–289. [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Myung IS, Nam KW, Cho Y. Cultural characteristics of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. Citri bacteriophages CP1 from Korea. Plant Pathol. J. 2002;18(6):333–337. [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Iriarte FB, Balogh B, Momol MT, Smith LM, Wilson M, Jones JB. Factors affecting survival of bacteriophage on tomato leaf surfaces. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007;73(6):1704–1711. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02118-06. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Wommack KE, Hill RT, Muller TA, Colwell RR. Effects of sunlight on bacteriophage viability and structure. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1996;62(4):1336–1341. doi: 10.1128/aem.62.4.1336-1341.1996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Balogh B, Jones JB, Momol MT, Olson SM, Obradovic A, King P, Jackson LE. Improved efficacy of newly formulated bacteriophages for management of bacterial spot on tomato. Plant Dis. 2003;87(8):949–954. doi: 10.1094/PDIS.2003.87.8.949. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Schisler DA, Slininger PJ. Microbial selection strategies that enhance the likelihood of developing commercial biological control products. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 1997;19:172–179. [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Dai I, Chow TY, Liao HJ, Chen ZY, Chiang KS. Nucleotide sequences involved in the neolysogenic insertion of filamentous phage Cf16-v1 into the Xanthomonas campestris pv.Citri chromosome. Virology. 1988;167(2):613–620. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Clokie MRJ, Kropinski A. Bacteriophages: Methods and Protocols. Volume 1: Isolation, characterization, and interactions. 1st ed. USA: Humana press, Springer Protocols;2009.
  • 92.Ahmad AA, Ogawa M, Kawasaki T, Fujie M, Yamada T. Characterization of bacteriophages cp1 and cp2, the strain-typing agents for Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. Citri. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014;80(1):77–85. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02310-13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Dai H, Tsay SH, Kuo TT, Lin YH, Wu WC. Neolysogenization of Xanthomonas campestris pv. citri infected with filamentous phage Cf16. Virology. 1987;156:313–320. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 94.Kuo TT, Lin YH, Huang CM, Chang SF, Dai H, Feng TY. The lysogenic cycle of the filamentous phage Cflt from Xanthomonas campestris pv. Citri. Virology. 1987;156(2):305–312. doi: 10.1016/0042-6822(87)90410-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Lee CN, Lin JW, Weng SF, Tseng YH. Genomic characterization of the intron-containing T7-like phage phiL7 of Xanthomonas campestris. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009;75(24):7828–7837. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01214-09. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Kuo TT, Tan MS, Su MT, Yang MK. Complete nucleotide sequence of filamentous phage Cf1c from Xanthomonas campestris pv. citri. Nucleic Acids Res. 1991;19(9):2498. doi: 10.1093/nar/19.9.2498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97.Yeh TY. Complete nucleotide sequence of a new filamentous phage, Xf109, which integrates its genome into the chromosomal DNA of Xanthomonas oryzae. Arch Virol. 2017;162(2):567–572. doi: 10.1007/s00705-016-3105-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98.Shieh GJ, Lin CH, Kuo JL, Kuo TT. Characterization of an open reading frame involved in site-specific integration of filamentous phage Cflt from Xanthomonas campestris pv. Citri. Gene. 1995;158(1):73–76. doi: 10.1016/0378-1119(95)00170-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 99.Burmeister AR, Abedon ST, Turner PE. Bacteriophage ecology. Encycl Microbiol. 2019. 10.1016/B978-0-12-809633-8.90677-0.
  • 100.Yang YC, Chou CP, Kuo TT, Lin SH, Yang MK. PilR enhances the sensitivity of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. Citri to the infection of filamentous bacteriophage Cf. Curr. Microbiol. 2004;48(4):251–261. doi: 10.1007/s00284-003-4191-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101.Hung CH, Wu HC, Tseng YH. Mutation in the Xanthomonas campestris xanA gene required for synthesis of xanthan and lipopolysaccharide drastically reduces the efficiency of bacteriophage ΦL7 adsorption. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2002;291(2):338–343. doi: 10.1006/bbrc.2002.6440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102.Hung CH, Yang CF, Yang CY, Tseng YH. Involvement of tonB-exbBD1D2 operon in infection of Xanthomonas campestris phage φL7. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003;302(4):878–884. doi: 10.1016/s0006-291x(03)00255-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103.Weng SF, Fu YC, Lin JW, Tseng TT. Identification of a broad-spectrum peptidoglycan hydrolase associated with the particle of Xanthomonas oryzae. Phage Xop411. J. Mol. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018;28(2):78–86. doi: 10.1159/000488678. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104.Katznelson H, Sutton MD, Bayley ST. The use of bacteriophage of Xanthomonas phaseoli in detecting infection in beans, with observation on its growth and morphology. Can J Microbiol. 1954;1(1):22–29. doi: 10.1139/m55-004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105.Okabe N, Goto M. Bacteriophages of plant pathogens. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 1963;1:397–418. [Google Scholar]
  • 106.Ehrlich M, Ehrlich K, Mayo JA. Unusual properties of the DNA from Xanthomonas phage XP-12 in which 5-methylcytosine completely replaces cytosine. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1975;395(2):109–119. doi: 10.1016/0005-2787(75)90149-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107.Kuo TT, Tu J. Enzymatic synthesis of deoxy-5-methyl-cytidylic acid replacing deoxycytidylic acid in Xanthomonas oryzae phage Xp12 DNA. Nature. 1976;263:615. doi: 10.1038/263615a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108.Kuo TT, Chow TY, Lin YT. A new thymidylate biosynthesis in Xanthomonas oryzae infected by phage Xp12. Virology. 1982;118(2):293–300. doi: 10.1016/0042-6822(82)90348-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109.Cheng CM, Tu J, Yang CC, Kuo TT. Specific protein phosphorylation induced in Xanthomonas campestris pv. Oryzae by bacteriophage Xp12. Arch. Microbiol. 1994;161(4):281–285. doi: 10.1007/BF00303581. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110.Lin S-H, Liu J-S, Yang B-C, Kuo T-T. Disassociation of sigma subunit from RNA polymerase of Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzae by phage Xp10 infection. FEMS. Microbiol. Lett. 1998;162(1):9–15. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6968.1998.tb12972.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111.Zenkin N, Severinov K, Yuzenkova Y. Bacteriophage Xp10 anti-termination factor p7 induces forward translocation by host RNA polymerase. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43(13):6299–6308. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkv586. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112.Nagai H, Miyake N, Kato S, Maekawa D, Inoue Y, Takikawa Y. Improved control of black rot of broccoli caused by Xanthomonas campestris pv. Campestris using a bacteriophage and a nonpathogenic Xanthomonas sp. strain. J. Gen. Plant Pathol. 2017;83:373–381. [Google Scholar]
  • 113.Obradovic A, Jones JB, Momol MT, Balogh B, Olson SM. Management of tomato bacterial spot in the field by foliar applications of bacteriophages and SAR inducers. Plant Dis. 2004;88(7):736–740. doi: 10.1094/PDIS.2004.88.7.736. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114.Civerolo EL. Relationship of Xanthomonas pruni bacteriophages to bacterial spot disease in Prunus. Phytopathol. 1973;63:1279–1284. [Google Scholar]
  • 115.Merabishvili M, Pirnay JP, De Vos D. Guidelines to compose an ideal bacteriophage cocktail Methods. Mol Biol. 1693;2018:99–110. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-7395-8_9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116.Chan BK, Abedon ST, Loc-carrillo C. Phage cocktails and the future of phage therapy. Future Microbiol. 2013:769–83. [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 117.Borah P, Jindal J, Verma J. Integrated management of bacterial leaf spot of mungbean with bacteriophages of Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. Vignaeradiatae and chemicals. J. Mycol. Plant Pathol. 2000;30:19–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 118.Lee CN, Lin JW, Chow TY, Tseng YH, Weng SF. A novel lysozyme from Xanthomonas oryzae phage ɸXo411 active against Xanthomonas and Stenotrophomonas. Protein Expr Purif. 2006;50:229–237. doi: 10.1016/j.pep.2006.06.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119.Balogh B, Nga NTT, Jones JB. Relative level of bacteriophage multiplication in vitro or in phyllosphere may not predict in planta efficacy for controlling bacterial leaf spot on tomato caused by Xanthomonas perforans. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2176. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02176. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120.Dömötör D, Frank T, Rákhely G, Doffkay Z, Schneider G, Kovács T. Comparative analysis of two bacteriophages of Xanthomonas arboricola pv. Juglandis. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2016;43:371–377. doi: 10.1016/j.meegid.2016.06.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/LR743529. Accessed 8 Mar 2021.
  • 122.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/LR743531. Accessed 8 Mar 2021.
  • 123.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/LR743528. Accessed 8 Mar 2021.
  • 124.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MT210154. Accessed 8 Mar 2021.
  • 125.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MT119766. Accessed 8 Mar 2021.
  • 126.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/AY986977. Accessed 8 Mar 2021.
  • 127.Inoue Y, Matsuura T, Ohara T, Azegami K. Bacteriophage OP1, lytic for Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzae, changes its host range by duplication and deletion of the small domain the deduced tail fiber gene. J. Gen. Plant Pathol. 2006;72:111–118. [Google Scholar]
  • 128.Yuzenkova J, Nechaev S, Berlin J, Rogulja D, Kuznedelov K, Inman R, Mushegian A, Severinov K. Genome of Xanthomonas oryzae bacteriophage Xp10: an odd T-odd phage. J Mol Biol. 2003;330(4):735–748. doi: 10.1016/s0022-2836(03)00634-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 129.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/LR743530. Accessed 10 Mar 2021.
  • 130.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/LR743532. Accessed 10 Mar 2021.
  • 131.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN364664. Accessed 20 May 2021.
  • 132.Inoue Y, Matsuura T, Ohara T, Azegami K. Sequence analysis of the genome of OP2, a lytic bacteriophage of Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzae. J Gen Plant Pathol. 2006;72:104–110. [Google Scholar]
  • 133.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/JN022534. Accessed 10 Mar 2021.
  • 134.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH059633. Accessed 10 Mar 2021.
  • 135.Ghei OK, Eisenstark A, To CM. Consigli RA. Structure and composition of Xanthomonas pruni bacteriophage. J. Gen. Virol. 1968;3:133–136. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-3-1-133. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 136.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH206183. Accessed 10 Mar 2021.
  • 137.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH218848. Accessed 10 Mar 2021.
  • 138.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MH206184. Accessed 10 Mar 2021.
  • 139.National Center for Biotechnology Information. Bethesda Maryland. 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN263053. Accessed 10 Mar 2021.
  • 140.Lin NT, You BY, Huang CY, Kuo CW, Wen FS, Yang JS, Tseng YH. Characterization of two novel filamentous phages of Xanthomonas. J. Gen. Virol. 1994;75(9):2543–2547. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-75-9-2543. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 141.Tseng YH, Lo MC, Lin KC, Pan CC, Chang RY. Characterization of filamentous bacteriophage ΦLf from Xanthomonas campestris pv. Campestris. J. Gen. Virol. 1990;71(8):1881–1884. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-71-8-1881. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

12866_2021_2351_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (21.5KB, xlsx)

Additional file 1 : Table S1 Taxonomic classification, genomic properties and host bacteria of Xanthomonas phages. Description of data: Xanthomonas phages of order Caudovirales and Tubulavirales, their morphological and genomic properties and host bacteria.

Data Availability Statement

All data considered during this review is presented within the manuscript and in the additional supporting file.


Articles from BMC Microbiology are provided here courtesy of BMC

RESOURCES