A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E A. Mäe et al. (2018) 27: 138–145 138 Ramularia collo-cygni: a new pathogen spreading in barley fields in Estonia Andres Mäe, Lee Põllumaa and Pille Sooväli Department of Plant Protection, Estonian Crop Research Institute, J. Aamisepa 1, 48309 Jõgeva, Jõgeva vald, Estonia e-mail: andres.mae@etki.ee Ramularia leaf spot (RLS) caused by the fungus Ramularia collo-cygni (Rcc) is affecting barley fields throughout temperate regions worldwide. The first finding of RLS in Estonia was reported on spring barley in 2012 and since then the area of RLS infection has been widening in Estonia. This work has been carried out to monitor the natural infection of Rcc in two winter barley cultivars and to follow artificial fungal infection by a PCR-based assay. Using our approach, we could detect presence of the fungal pathogen in barley leaves before the appearance of disease symptoms at early growth stages. Response of two tested cultivars to Rcc infection in the field conditions was dif- ferent, showing genotype-environment interaction in the development and spreading of Rcc. In harvested grain samples at the end of growing season no Rcc infection was detected. The role of external inoculum, Rcc conidia transmitted from various grasses (Poaceae) growing next to crop fields, is discussed. These results provide further insight into the epidemiology of Rcc. Key words: Ramularia leaf spot, pathogen, winter barley Introduction The fungus Ramularia collo-cygni (Rcc) is the biotic agent involved in Ramularia leaf spot (RLS) disease. In the 80s, RLS received scientific attention as a new serious disease affecting barley throughout Europe, South-America and New Zealand (Sachs et al. 1998, Walters et al. 2008). The first case of RLS in Estonia was detected in 2012 on spring barley (Sooväli et al. 2014). As an important barley pathogen, Rcc has also been reported to colonize rye, oats, wheat and many other grass species (Huss 2004, Kaczmarek et al. 2016) and causes severe risks not only at global but also at local level, especially in the case of small farms. The increased incidence of RLS is connected with shorter crop rotations and long-term cultivation of barley (Havis et al. 2015). Moreover, it is often difficult to distinguish RLS from physiological leaf spotting, further frustrating efforts to detect the pathogen at early stage of plant infection. Current Rcc control methods rely on foliar fungicides applied at booting growth stage, before leaf spots appear (Oxley and Havis 2009). The control of pathogen by seed treatment has been examined but no effective control on RLS was achieved (Havis and Oxley 2006). It has been recognized that though barley cultivars varied in suscep- tibility to the disease, there is still a demand for improved resistance in genotypes (Havis et al. 2015). The use of resistant cereal cultivars and crop rotation can lower the number of fungicide treatments per season which may have preventative effect on fungicide resistance development. Rotation is more likely to be effective if the entire field is rotated out of susceptible crops rather than just the section previously planted to the crop. The fungus is thought to have a latent endophytic phase in plants before becoming pathogenic (Salamati and Rei- tan 2006, Kaczmarek et al. 2016). The process that triggers the transition of Rcc from symptomless to the symp- tom-causing phase is poorly understood (Salamati and Reitan 2006, McGrann et al. 2015). Symptoms of Rcc in- fection become visible on older senescing (lower) leaves after ear emergence, suggesting a possible link between appearance of RLS symptoms and host plant developmental stage (Schützendübel et al. 2008, Havis et al. 2015). Publication of the entire genome sequence of Rcc isolate DK05 Rcc001 (McGrann et al. 2016) has made it a model for the experimental characterization of the molecular dynamics of Ramularia-host interactions. There are several possible inoculum sources for Rcc infection, which include airborne conidia released and spread- ing from non-host to host plants (Heuser and Zimmer 2002, Salamati and Reitan 2006, Havis et al. 2014, Peraldi et al. 2014, Kaczmarek et al. 2016). Salamati and Reitan (2006) reported that in addition to airborne spores Rcc produces a second type of spore known as asteromella which develop late in the season on straw. These struc- tures have also been reported from in vitro cultures (Kaczmarek et al. 2013). Frei et al. (2007) showed that Rcc overwinters on winter barley and therefore can be considered as an infection source for spring barley. The crop debris left in the field can also be one possible source of inoculum (Salamati and Reitan 2006). In addition, seed Manuscript received January 2018 A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E A. Mäe et al. (2018) 27: 138–145 139 transmission is considered as a possible inoculation source with regard to epidemiology and is perceived as a chal- lenge for disease control and quarantine (Havis and Oxley 2006, Matusinsky et al. 2011). Conventional identification techniques of Rcc are based on the microscopic identification of conidiophores on the leaf surface. However, conidiogenesis represents a relatively late stage of the infection process. Studies using scan- ning electron microscopy of naturally infected leaves (Stabentheiner et al. 2009) and fluorescently labelled trans- genic Rcc isolates (Thirugnanasambandam et al. 2011) have provided valuable insights into the infection process by Rcc. To gain a better understanding of the distribution of this pathogen as well as its early detection, different molecular bioanalytical tools based on PCR have been developed for the detection of Rcc in plant tissues (Havis et al. 2006, Frei et al. 2007, Taylor et al. 2010, Matusinsky et al. 2011, Havis et al. 2015). An accurate diagnostic test for Rcc in winter barley, together with the correct timing of fungicide application in the fields, should help to control the infection. The main objectives of the study were to find reliable Rcc detec- tion methods in the early phase of infection and to reveal possible transfer routes of Rcc. Materials and methods Barley sampling In field experiments winter barley cultivars (cv.) Fridericus and Cinderella were arranged with four replicates in a randomized design 10m² plots at Viljandi Variety Testing Centre in Estonia during the growing seasons of 2014/2015 and 2015/2016. In both years the preceding crop was clover. Both trials were seeded into a ploughed fields at op- timal time in the first week of September. Before sowing sertified seeds were treated with Baytan Trio fungicide (fluopyram 5 g l–1, fluoxastrobin 25 g l–1, triadimenol 150 g l–1) at a rate 2 l t–1. In both years mineral fertilizer Yara Mila 7-20-28 300 kg ha–1 before sowing, additional fertilizers ASN 100 kg ha–1 and Axan 230 kg ha–1 were applied in spring. The leaves were taken from 10 plants randomly selected places on each plot on every 7ͭ ͪday during the test period from tillering growth stage (GS 27) (Zadoks et al. 1974) to hard dough stage (GS 87), in total, from 7 time points. Leaves samples were stored at –20 °C in a freezer until the trial period was finished. In three separate experiments the grain subsamples of the barley cultivars (100 g of grain per sample) were col- lected at full ripening stage (GS 91) and stored at 14% humidity till DNA isolation. Local weather conditions The weather conditions in the autumn of 2014 were characterised by average temperature of 8.9 °C and the sum of precipitation of 80 mm in September-October. The spring of 2015 was cool and dry: May-July average tempera- ture 13.6 °C (long-term average 14.7 °C) and precipitation 170 mm (long-term average 196 mm), July being the warmest month of the period (average temperature 16.1 °C). The weather conditions in the autumn of 2015 with average temperature in September-October of 8.7 °C and the sum of precipitation of 70 mm were similar to that of autumn 2014. The spring of 2016 was warmer and rainy: in May-July average temperature 15.8 °C, was above the same period of 2015 (average temperature 17.6 °C). Precipitation 190 mm was similar of long-term average but exceeded the same period of 2015 by 20 mm. DNA extraction and spike test The Rcc isolate RCC2 (Sooväli et al. 2014) was maintained on potato dextrose agar (PDA) (Conda, Spain) in 9 cm Petri dishes incubated at 17 °C for 10–12 days in the dark. Mycelium from this culture was harvested and finely grounded for DNA extraction. Total genomic DNA was isolated from barley leaves (a composite sample of 10 g leaf material) and seeds (a composite sample of 100 seeds) by crushing the samples frozen in liquid nitrogen to fine powder using a pestle and a mortar. In case of each sample, DNA from 100 mg of plant material and 50 mg of RCC2 mycelium was extracted with a DNeasy Pant Mini Kit (Qiagen, Gmbh, D-40724 Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. DNA from barley seeds was also extracted on the NucliSENS® easyMAG® DNA/RNA (Biomerieux, UK) extraction platform according to the manufacturer’s instructions. DNA concentration and purity were measured at 260 and 280 nm on a Nanodrop. A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E A. Mäe et al. (2018) 27: 138–145 140 The ability of the Rcc PCR primer Rc3/Rc5 to identify and amplify its target in the presence of a high concentration of nontarget (plant) DNA was analyzed in spiking studies. Varying amounts of Rcc DNA (500–0.005 pg) were spiked into a fixed amount of plant DNA (100 ng) and the mixture was used as a template in the PCR assay. Standard PCR Several PCR primers pairs for preliminary study of qualitative detection of Rcc in samples of barley were tested (data not shown). Primers pair Rc3 and Rc5 (Frei et al. 2007) were proved to be the most specific with a PCR prod- uct of 348 bp amplified for all Rcc infected plant samples tested on the conventional PCR. PCR was carried out in a Mastercycler nexus GX2 (Eppendorf AG, Hamburg) in 25 μl reaction mixture containing 1X Taq polymerase buf- fer (20 mM Tris-HCl, 1.5 mM MgCl 2, 0.5 μl) 0.2 mM each dNTP (ThermoFisher Scientific, USA), 250 nM primers Rc3 and Rc5, 0.6 U Taq DNA polymerase (ThermoFisher Scientific, USA), and approximately 100 ng of genomic DNA. The optimized PCR temperature programme consisted of Taq activation at 94 °C for 4 min and 35 cycles of amplification (denaturation at 94 °C for 45 s, primer annealing at 60 °C for 45 s and extension at 72 °C for 45 s). Appropriate positive (Rcc DNA) and negative controls (sterile distilled water [SDW]) were included in all experi- ments PCR products were separated in ethidium bromide-stained 1.5% agarose gels run in 1X Tris-Acetate-EDTA buffer and exposed to UV-light to visualize the DNA fragments (Sambrook et al. 1989). Nucleotide sequencing reactions were performed by the dideoxynucleotide method of Sanger (Sanger et al. 1977). DNA and protein se- quence homology searches were done in the GenBank, EMBL and SWISS-PROT databases by using the University of Wisconsin Genetic Computer Group programs BLASTN, BLASTX and FASTEMBL. In vitro inoculation of barley plants To study systemic growth and spreading of Rcc under the controlled environment the Rcc seeds of the barley cv. Fridericus from growing season 2014/2015 were used. The seeds were pre-germinated on watered sterile filter paper in Petri dishes at 20 °C for 2 days. The seedlings were planted in Ø 20 cm pots (4 plants per pot) filled with mixture of sterilized soil, turf substrate and sand (2:2:1) and propagated in environmental chamber at 18 °C apply- ing a 16 h photoperiod. Plants were fertilized 10 days after sowing with a solution containing (NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 (0.6 g kg–1 soil), K 2 SO 4 (0.3 g kg–1 soil), KH 2 PO 4 (0.2 g kg–1 soil), MgSO 4 (0.5 g kg–1 soil). After inoculation the plants were kept in the dark for 48 h and covered with plastic bags to achieve relative humidity close to 100%. After this treatment the 16 h photoperiod was restored. In all experiments, ten pots per treatment were inoculated and five pots were inoculated with water to serve as controls. Ramularia collo-cygni isolate RCC2 was maintained on PDA at 17 °C. For inoculation, a 0.5 cm2 section of agar cov- ered with fungus was transferred into 50 ml of potato broth (Salamati and Reitan 2006) and grown at 17 °C under constant agitation at 170 rpm for 14 days in the dark. To prepare the inoculum for plant trials, the fungal myce- lium was passed through cheesecloth and a drop of Tween 20 was added per 20 ml of suspension. The obtained suspension was used to infect the leaf F-3 (3rd leaf under the flag leaf) at the beginning of tillering (GS 19─20) by spraying it evenly until runoff. A control set of plants was sprayed with water. From infected and control plants sampling involved the collection of six to eight plants randomly and separation of leaf layers at medium milk stage (GS 75). The experiment was performed twice. Results Specificity and sensitivity of the primers The ability of the primer pair Rc3 / Rc5 to amplify a 348 bp DNA fragment from Rcc DNA (Frei et al. 2007) was tested on purified DNA of Ramularia collo-cygni isolate RCC2 as well as on Rcc - spiked barley DNA. Serial ten-fold dilutions of the DNA isolated from RCC2 were tested in the PCR protocol (Fig. 1a). The PCR method could amplify a DNA fragment of 348 bp with content of RCC2 DNA as low as 0.005 pg. To determine the impact of plant DNA background in the field samples on the PCR assay performance, Rcc DNA ranging from 5 ng to 0.00005 pg was spiked into 100 ng of barley DNA. The lowest amount of Rcc DNA yielding a visible Rc3 / Rc5 PCR product on aga- rose gel was 0.005 pg in spiked samples (Fig. 1b). A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E A. Mäe et al. (2018) 27: 138–145 141 Detection of Rcc in field samples of winter barley In the 2014/15 growing season on Viljandi Variety Testing Centre fields two winter barley cultivars - Fridericus and Cinderella were grown. Necrotic spots or signs of senescence resembling Rcc infection were detected in June at flowering stage (GS 61, week 24) on some lower F-3 and F-4 leaves. A 348 bp DNA fragment characteristic to Rcc was amplified from extracts isolated from the leaves with necrotic spots of cv. Fridericus and Cinderella (Fig. 2, lanes 4─6 and 10─12 respectively). In healthy barley plants grown in the controlled environment chamber and used as a negative control, the Rcc specific 348 bp PCR fragment was not detected, cv. Fridericus and Cinderella (Fig. 2, lanes 1‒3 and 7‒9 respectively). To verify whether the disclosed pathogenic isolates really belong to Rcc species, the PCR fragments amplified from both winter barley cultivars were sequenced and the sequences had 98% identity with that of Ramularia collo- cygni (Rcc accession number http://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/PRJEB11432). Though the Rcc DNA was detected in the leaves of both barley cultivars (GS 83, week 25), the seeds of winter bar- ley harvested in 2015 were not contaminated with Rcc (Fig. 3). In the growing season of 2015/2016, the monitor- ing of Rcc infection was started in May 2016 at stem elongation stage (GS 32, week 19) and carried on at weekly intervals until the beginning of July 2016. On both barley cultivars, the Rcc colonization started at lower leaves and then moved upward (Fig. 4). The first traces of Rcc DNA were found at inflorescence emerged stage (GS 57‒58, week 22) in the case of cv. Fridericus and only at early dough stage (GS 83, week 25) in the case of cv. Cinderella (Fig. 4), which is respectively 28 and 8 days prior estimation of visible leaf symptoms at hard dough stage (GS 87) of both cultivars. The PCR analysis of seeds harvested from both cultivars in 2016 were not contaminated with Rcc (data not shown). Fig. 2. Rcc-specific Primers Rc3 and Rc5 were used for amplification of 348 bp DNA fragment. Lanes: 1‒6 cv. Fridericus; 7─12 cv. Cinderella; 13‒14 positive control (100 pg of Rcc DNA); 15. negative control (SDW). Marker - M 1.0 kbp DNA ladder Plus (Thermo Scientific) Fig. 1. Sensitivity of the Rc3/Rc5 primer set on Rcc strain RCC2. (a) 10-fold serial dilutions of purified Rcc. Lanes: 1. 50 ng; 2. 5 ng; 3. 0.5 ng; 4. 50 pg; 5. 5 pg; 6. 0.5 pg; 7. 0.05 pg; 8. 0.005 pg; 9. negative control (SDW); 10. positive control (100 pg of Rcc DNA); M. 1.0 kbp DNA ladder Plus (Thermo Scientific). (b) Spiking 100 ng of barley DNA with varying amounts of Rcc DNA: Lanes: 1. 5 ng; 2. 50 pg; 3. 0.5 pg; 4. 0.005 pg; 5. 0.00005 pg; 6. negative control (SDW); 7. positive control (100 pg of Rcc DNA) A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E A. Mäe et al. (2018) 27: 138–145 142 PCR analysis on in vitro infected plants In the controlled environment chamber experiment, cv. Fridericus seeds of growing season 2014/2015 which were found to be free of Rcc contamination (Fig. 3) were used. Rcc DNA was detected in all leaves at medium milk stage (GS 75), the fungus was present on flag-leaf, F-1, F-2 and F-3 leaves (Fig. 5a) although necrotic spots were not observed (data not shown). At GS 13, 25 and 75 Rcc DNA was not detected in control barley plants (Fig. 5b). Our findings show a correlation between the accumulations of Rcc DNA in naturally infected plants in the field (Fig. 4b) and artificially inoculated controlled environment chamber grown plants (Fig. 5a). Fig. 3. PCR analysis of Rcc DNA in infected winter barley (cv. Fridericus –lanes 1─2 and cv. Cinderella, lanes 3─4) seeds and leaves Lanes: 1. seeds of cv. Fridericus, 2. leaves (GS 83, week 25) of cv. Fridericus, 3. seeds of cv. Cinderella, 4. leaves (GS 83, week 25) of cv. Cinderella, M. 1.0 kbp DNA ladder Plus (Thermo Scientific), 5. negative control (SDW), 6. positive control (100 pg of Rcc DNA) Fig. 4. Transmission of the fungus in winter barley. Rcc DNA detected by PCR in F-1, F-2, and F-3 leaves at different growth stages. (a) cv. Cinderella: 1─3. GS 83 of F-1, F-2, F-3 leaves; 4─6. GS 85 of F-1, F-2, F-3 leaves; 7. GS 87 of F-1 leaf; 8. negative control (SDW); 9. positive control (100 pg of Rcc DNA). (b) cv. Fridericus: 1‒3. GS 57‒58 of F-1, F-2, F-3 leaves; 4‒6. GS 73 of F-1, F-2, F-3 leaves; 7‒9. GS 75 of F-1, F-2, F-3 leaves; 10‒12. GS 83 of F-1, F-2, F-3 leaves; 13‒14. GS 85 of F-1, F-2 leaves; 15. negative control (SDW); 16. positive control (100 pg of Rcc DNA); M. 1.0 kbp DNA ladder Plus (Thermo Scientific) Fig. 5. Detection of Rcc DNA in barley cv. Fridericus plants (seeded from the 2015 harvest) in controlled environment. (a) Artificially infected barley at GS 75 in leaves: 1. flag leaf; 2. F-1; 3. F-2; .4 F-3; 5. positive control (100 pg of Rcc DNA); M. 1.0 kb DNA ladder Plus (Thermo Scientific); ,6. negative control (SDW). (b) Not-infected barley: 1. negative control (SDW); 2. positive control (100 pg of Rcc DNA); 3. GS 13; 4. GS 25; 5. GS 75; M. 1.0 kb DNA ladder Plus (Thermo Scientific) A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E A. Mäe et al. (2018) 27: 138–145 143 Discussion Since the first detection of Rcc in spring barley in Estonia in 2012 (Sooväli et al. 2014), the pathogen has rapidly spread in winter barley (Mäe and Sooväli 2018). Accordingly, the urgent need for methods for timely crop pro- tection emerged. The objective of our study was to achieve early detection of Rcc infection in local fields and to identify possible sources of Rcc infection in winter barley. During recent years, rapid development of molecular and bioanalytical PCR-based tools have enabled detection of Rcc in plant tissues (Taylor et al. 2010, Matusinsky et al. 2011, Havis et al. 2015). Although all primer sets tested appeared to function after optimizing the PCR cycle, primers pair Rc3/Rc5 was proved to be specific with a PCR product of 348 bp (Frei et al. 2007) and was selected because of amplification selectivity and intensity. This set of primers could specifically amplify as low as 0.005 pg of Rcc DNA (Fig. 1a) even in complex samples containing the barley genomic DNA (Fig. 1b). Although our experiments had lower sensitivity of a direct PCR method compared to that showed by Frei et al. (2007), we were certainly able to detect the fungal DNA in barley leaves before the disease symptoms became visible. The fungus was present in winter barley already in the beginning of flowering stage (GS 61) before the appearance of the disease symptoms (Fig. 2). Recent works have shown a seed-borne stage of the fungal life cycle, supporting the assumption of fungus spread- ing from season to season (Nyman et al. 2009, Matusinsky et al. 2011, Havis et al. 2014). Yet, our results showed that grain harvested in 2015 was not contaminated with Rcc (Fig. 3) although it originated from the fields where the infected barley plants of cv. Cinderella and Fridericus were detected. Rcc DNA was also not detected in grain harvested in 2016 from the infected barley plants of cv. Cinderella and Fridericus. It can be inferred that the con- tamination of plants is not the decisive factor for the subsequent spreading of pathogen to seeds. Supposedly testing more different winter barley cultivars and growth conditions could lead to different infecting patterns of the pathogen. The possible reason that affected the spreading and maturation of spores of Rcc from May to July in 2015 were the lower average temperature and precipitation. Correlation between the spore release and am- bient climatic/environmental conditions has been reported also by Havis et al. (2015). The seeds from harvested winter barley (both cv. Fridericus and Cinderella) in 2015 were used for seeding the fields in the next 2015/2016 growing season. Also, the same batch of seeds of cv. Fridericus was used to grow barley under controlled condi- tions and no pathogen was found at any growth stages studied (GS 13, GS 25 and GS 75 on Fig. 5b). This proves that the fungus did not move during the growing season 2014/2015 from infected barley leaves to grain. There- fore the infections found during the next 2015/2016 growing season in the fields in both cultivars were probably externally obtained (Fig. 4). On the contrary, Havis et al. (Havis and Oxley 2006, Havis et al. 2014) demonstrated Rcc transmission by seeds although the colonization depended on the presence of an inoculum source, susceptibility of the crop and was largely determined by local environmental conditions (Havis and Oxley 2006, Matusinsky et al. 2011). Our data indicate that comparatively warm and dry weather during late growth stages in July 2015 in winter barley fields did not favour Rcc spore germination and point to Rcc spreading in the fields of the winter barley via external in- oculum. Conidia can be considered as a source of external inoculum in plant infection in the field. According to Zamani-Noor et al. (2009) conidia of Rcc can travel long distances with the help of wind, rainfall or even snow. A possible external inoculum source for Rcc infection could be grasses (Poaceae) growing next to the crop fields (Heuser and Zimmer 2002). Rcc is shown to infect the model grass Brachypodium distachyon (Peraldi et al. 2014) and pass infection from grasses and weeds into the crops (Kaczmarek et al. 2016). Similar track of trans- mission has been described also for the wheat pathogen Zymoseptoria pseudotritici (Stukenbrock and Bataillon 2012). The infection of barley through external sources was also reported by Nyman et al. (2009) supporting our hypothesis of external origin of the cause of RLS disease under dry environmental conditions. Different discovery times of Rcc infection symptoms were detected for the 2 cultivars studied, just as Havis et al. (2012) demonstrated different susceptibility of cultivars to RLS disease. Some specific genotype-environment in- teractions in the development and spreading of Rcc on different winter barley cultivars (Miethbauer et al. 2003, Oxley et al. 2008, Marik et al. 2011) could explain the differences between cv. Fridericus and Cinderella in the progression of Rcc infection. As the initial source and time of infection have not been clearly identified, the spreading of Rcc was analysed in artificially infected cv. Fridericus winter barley in controlled environment. In inoculated plants grown from Rcc-free seeds the fungus was detected in emerging leaf layers and moved from the lower to the upper leaves of the plant A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E A. Mäe et al. (2018) 27: 138–145 144 similarly to barley plants infected in the field confirming vertical movement of the pathogen (Fig. 5a). Nyman et al. (2009) got similar results with artificially inoculated plants grown from Rcc-free seed. In summary, the impact and role of external inoculum on distribution of RLS was shown by detecting Rcc DNA on asymptomatic leaves of winter barley plant sown from uninfected seeds. It is possible that under specific climate and environmental conditions only external sources of infection could be a major threat to barley production. In future studies it is intended to further investigate the other possible sources of inoculum for this pathogen, in- cluding other graminaceous hosts. Ryegrass and black-grass could be a major inoculum source for Rcc, as it can often be seen growing next to crop fields. Therefore, this issue, together with the climatic conditions that affect the spreading of Rcc on barley, should be a priority for continuing research. Acknowledgements This research was supported by grant MEMRUP3.4-23/1140 from the Ministry of Rural Affairs. The authors grate- fully acknowledge the support from Viljandi Variety Testing Centre for technical assistance. We thank Dr. Tiina Alamäe for critical reviewing of the manuscript. References Frei, P., Gindro, K., Richter, H. & Schürch, S. 2007. Direct-PCR detection and epidemiology of Ramularia collo-cygni associated with barley necrotic leaf spots. Journal of Phytopathology 155: 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0434.2007.01228.x Havis, N.D., Brown, J.K.M., Clemente, G., Frei, P., Jedryczka, M., Kaczmarek, J., Kaczmarek, M., Matusinsky, P., Graham, R.D., McGrann, G.R.D., Pereyra, S., Piotrowska, M., Sghyer, H., Tellier, A. & Hess, M. 2015. Ramularia collo-cygni —An Emerging Patho- gen of Barley Crops. Phytopathology 105: 895–904. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-11-14-0337-FI Havis, N.D., Nyman, M. & Oxley, S.J.P. 2014. Evidence for seed transmission and symptomless growth of Ramularia collo-cygni in barley (Hordeum vulgare). Plant Pathology 63: 929–936. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.12162 Havis, N.D. & Oxley, S.J.P. 2006. Investigating the life cycle of Ramularia collo-cygni using PCR based diagnostic. In: Koopmann, B.Oxley, S., Schützendübel, A. & von Tiedemann, A. (eds.). First European Ramularia Workshop 12-14th of March 2006. Göttin- gen, Germany. p. 39–44. Havis, N.D., Oxley, S.J.P., Piper, S.R. & Langrell, S.R.H. 2006. Rapid nested PCR-based detection of Ramularia collo-cygni direct from barley. FEMS Microbiology Letters 256: 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2006.00121.x Havis, N.D., Oxley, S.J.P., Burnett, F. & Hughes, G. 2012. Epidemiology of Ramularia collo-cygni. In: Proceedings Crop Protection in Northern Britain 2012. p. 119–124. http://www.sipr.ac.uk/CPNB/Index_and_Proceedings_2012.pdf Heuser, T. & Zimmer, W. 2002. Quantitative analysis of phytopathogenic ascomycota on leaves of pedunculate oaks (Quercus robur L.) by real-time PCR. FEMS Microbiology Letters 209: 295–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1097(02)00560-8 Huss, H. 2004. The biology of Ramularia collo-cygni. In: Yahyaoui, A.H., Brader, L., Tekauz, A., Wallwork, H. & Steffenson, B. (eds). Proceeding of the 2nd International Workshop on Barley Leaf Blights, 7–11 April 2002. Aleppo, Syria. p. 321–328. Kaczmarek, M., Piotrowska, M., Fountaine, J. M., Gorniak, K., McGrann, G.R. D., Armstrong, A., Wright, K.W., Newton, A.C. & Havis, N.D. 2016. Infection strategy of Ramularia collo-cygni and development of Ramularia leaf spot on barley and alternative grami- naceous hosts. Plant Pathology 66: 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.12552 Marik, P., Snejdar, Z. & Matusinsky, P. 2011. Expression of resistance to Ramularia leaf spot in winter barley cultivars grown in conditions of the Czech Republic. Czech Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 47: 37–40. Retrieved from https://www.cabdi- rect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20113176629. https://doi.org/10.17221/34/2010-CJGPB Matusinsky, P., Leisova-Svobodova, L., Gubis, J., Hudcovicova, M., Klcova, L., Gubisova, M., Marik, P., Tvaruzek, V. & Minarikova, V. 2011. Impact of the seed-borne stage of Ramularia collo-cygni in barley seed. Journal of Plant Pathology 93: 679–689. McGrann, G.R.D., Andongabo, A., Sjökvist, E., Trivedi, U., Dussart, F., Kaczmarek, M., Mackenzie, J.M., Taylor, J.M., Paterson, L.J., Gorniak, K., Burnett, F., Kanyuka, K., Hammond-Kosack, K.E., Rudd, J.J., Blaxter, M. & Havis, N.D. 2016. The genome of the emerg- ing barley pathogen Ramularia collo-cygni. BMC Genomics 17: 584. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-016-2928-3 McGrann, G.R.D., Steed, A., Burt, C., Nicholson, P. & Brown, J.K.M. 2015. Differential effects of lesion mimic mutants in barley on disease development by facultative pathogens. Journal of Experimental Botany 66: 3417–3428. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv154 Miethbauer, S., Heiser, I. & Liebermann, B. 2003. The phytopathogenic fungus Ramularia collo-cygni produces biologically active rubellins on infected barley leaves. Journal of Phytopathology 151: 665–668. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0434.2003.00783.x Mäe, A. & Sooväli, P. 2018. Ramularia collo-cygni has invaded barley fields in Estonia. In: Alaru, M. (ed). Agronomy 2018. Tartu, Estonia. p. 82–87. Nyman, M., Havis, N. D. & Oxley, S. J. P. 2009. Importance of seed-borne infection of Ramularia collo-cygni. In: Oxley, S., Brown, J., Foster, V. & Havis, N. (eds.). Aspects 92: The 2nd European Ramularia Workshop - A new disease and challenge in barley pro- duction, 7-8 April 2009. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. p. 91–96. Oxley S.J.P., Havis N.D., Brown J.K.M. & Makepeace J.C. 2008. Impact and interactions of Ramularia collo-cygni and oxidative stress in barley. Retrieved from https://cereals.ahdb.org.uk/media/269137/pr431-summary.pdf A G R I C U LT U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E A. Mäe et al. (2018) 27: 138–145 145 Oxley, S.J.P. & Havis, N.D. 2009. Understanding Ramularia collo-cygni in the past, present and future. In: Oxley, S., Brown, J., Fos- ter, V. & Havis, H. (eds). Aspects 92: The 2nd European Ramularia Workshop - A new disease and challenge in barley production, 7-8 April 2009. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. p. 141–146. Peraldi, A., Griffe, L.L., Burt, C., McGrann, G.R.D. & Nicholson, P. 2014. Brachypodium distachyon exhibits compatible interactions with Oculimacula spp. and Ramularia collo-cygni, providing the first pathosystem model to study eyespot and ramularia leaf spot diseases. Plant Pathology 63: 554–562. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppa.12114 Sachs, E., Greif, P., Amelung, D., & Huss, H. 1998. Ramularia collo cygni a rediscovered barley pathogen in Europe. In MITT BBA 357, Halle, Germany. p. 96–97. Salamati, S. & Reitan, L. 2006. Ramularia collo-cygni on spring barley, an overview of its biology and epidemiology. In: B. Koop- mann, B., Oxley, S., Schützendübel, A. & von Tiedemann, A. (eds.). First European Ramularia Workshop 12-14th of March 2006. Göttingen, Germany. p. 19–35. Sambrook, J., Fritsch, E. & Maniatis, T. 1989. Molecular cloning: A Laboratory Manual. Cold Spring Harbor. NY, USA: Cold Spring Harbour Laboratory Press. Sanger, F., Nicklen, S. & Coulson, A. R. 1977. DNA sequencing with chain-terminating inhibitors. Proceedings of the National Acad- emy of Sciences 74: 5463–5467. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.74.12.5463 Schützendübel, A., Stadler, M., Wallner, D. & Von Tiedemann, A. 2008. A hypothesis on physiological alterations during plant on- togenesis governing susceptibility of winter barley to ramularia leaf spot. Plant Pathology 57: 518–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1365-3059.2007.01820.x Sooväli, P., Tikhonova, M. & Matusinsky, P. 2014. First Report of Ramularia Leaf Spot Caused by Ramularia collo-cygni on Leaves and Seeds of Barley in Estonia. Plant Disease. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-10-13-1035-PDN Stabentheiner, E., Minihofer, T. & Huss, H. 2009. Infection of barley by Ramularia collo-cygni: Scanning electron microscopic in- vestigations. Mycopathologia 168: 135–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11046-009-9206-8 Stukenbrock, E. H. & Bataillon, T. 2012. A Population Genomics Perspective on the Emergence and Adaptation of New Plant Patho- gens in Agro-Ecosystems. PLoS Pathogens 8: 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1002893 Taylor, J.M.G., Paterson, L.J., & Havis, N.D. 2010. A quantitative real-time PCR assay for the detection of Ramularia collo-cygni from barley (Hordeum vulgare). Letters in Applied Microbiology 50: 493–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-765X.2010.02826.x Thirugnanasambandam, A., Wright, K. M., Havis, N., Whisson, S. C. & Newton, A. C. 2011. Agrobacterium-mediated transforma- tion of the barley pathogen Ramularia collo-cygni with fluorescent marker tags and live tissue imaging of infection development. Plant Pathology 60: 929–937. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2011.02440.x Walters, D.R., Havis, N.D. & Oxley, S.J.P. 2008. Ramularia collo-cygni: The biology of an emerging pathogen of barley. FEMS Mi- crobiology Letters 279: 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2007.00986.x Zadoks, J., Chang, T., & Konzak, C. 1974. A decimal growth code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Research 14: 415–421. http://old.ibpdev.net/sites/default/files/zadoks_scale_1974.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.1974.tb01084.x Zamani-Noor, N., Schützendübel, A., Koopmann, B. & von Tiedemann, A. 2009. Epidemiology and pathogenicity of Ramularia col- lo-cygni associated with barley necrotic leaf spot disease. In: Oxley, S., Brown, J., Foster, V. & Havis, N. (eds.). Aspects 92: The 2nd European Ramularia Workshop - A new disease and challenge in barley production, 7-8 April 2009. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK. p. 41–42. Ramularia collo-cygni: a new pathogen spreadingin barley fields in Estonia Introduction Materials and methods Barley sampling Local weather conditions DNA extraction and spike test Standard PCR In vitro inoculation of barley plants Results Specificity and sensitivity of the primers Detection of Rcc in field samples of winter barley PCR analysis on in vitro infected plants Discussion Acknowledgements References