For tpdp steward: tpg recommendations on member comments on terms and consistency

Дата канвертавання24.04.2016
Памер22.75 Kb.

International Plant Protection Convention

TPG recommendation- 2004-021: Draft DP – Citrus tristeza virus


2004-021: Draft Annex to ISPM 27 – Citrus tristeza virus
The TPG reviewed member comments from member consultation 2015 that were related to terms and to consistency in the use of terms. Lines were added for additional comments by the TPG. The comments that did not relate to terms and consistency were not answered and are marked as “not TPG”.

The comment numbers are those of the original compiled comments.







TPG Recommendation




Footnotes related to the use of commercial brands should be included in this draft DP. Moreover there are commercial brands associated to a footnote, but text of the footnote is missing (footnote Nº 11 in paragraph 102; footnote 12 in paragraph 108 and footnote 7 in paragraph 137)

The following paragraphs mention commercial brands: 50, 53, 102, 108 and 137. Footnote to be included should read as follows: "The use of the brands ................., in this diagnostic protocol implies no approval of them to the exclusion of others that may also be suitable. This information is given for the convenience of users of this protocol and does not constitute an endorsment by the CPM of the chemical, reagent and/or equipment named. Equivalent products may be used if they can be shown to lead to the same results"

Uruguay, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay





General comments about the terminology used in this protocol When preparing the EPPO Standard on interlaboratory comparison Quality Assurance experts (from outside plant pest diagnostics) commented that the term ring test should not be used any longer but test performance study should be used instead. This terminology has now been adopted in EPPO Standards. We suggest replacing ring test by test performance study. Molecular amplification test: this terminology is not used in other IPPC protocols. We propose to replace ‘molecular amplification test’ by ‘molecular tests’ as in other protocols. In this protocol ‘method’, ‘procedure’ ‘test’ seem to be used with the meaning of tests in other IPPC protocols. The use of terms should be checked and be consistent we recommend to continue using test to designate the combination of a method (e.g. molecular/serological to detect/identify a pest in a matrix).

European Union

Not TPG. The TPG noted that consistency should be sought so if “test performance study” is the current term for “ring test” this should be used consistently. Idem for the use of “molecular test” versus “molecular amplification test”, and for the use of the terms “method”, “procedure” and “test”.




Replace “Aphis spiraecola Patch, Toxoptera aurantii (Boyer de Fonsicolombe), Myzus persicae (Sulzer), Aphis craccivora Koch and Uroleucon jaceae (Linnaeus)” to “A. spiraecola Patch, T. aurantii (Boyer de Fonsicolombe), Myzus persicae (Sulzer), A. craccivora Koch and Uroleucon jaceae (Linnaeus)”CTV is readily transmitted experimentally by grafting healthy citrus with virus-infected plant material. It is naturally transmitted by certain aphid species in a semi-persistent manner. The most efficient vector of CTV worldwide is T. citricida. T. citricida is well established in Asia, Australia, sub-Saharan Africa, Central and South America, the Caribbean, Florida (United States of America) and northern mainland Spain and Portugal as well as the Madeira Islands (Ilharco et al., 2005; Moreno et al., 2008). However, Aphis gossypii Glover is the main vector in Spain, Israel, some citrus growing areas in California (United States of America) and in all locations where T. citricida is absent (Yokomi et al., 1989; Cambra et al., 2000a; Marroquín et al., 2004). The comparative effects of aphid vector species on the spread of CTV have been reported (Gottwald et al., 1997). Other aphid species have also been described as CTV vectors (Moreno et al., 2008) including Aphis spiraecola Patch, Toxoptera aurantii (Boyer de Fonsicolombe), Myzus persicae (Sulzer), Aphis craccivora Koch and Uroleucon jaceae (Linnaeus). Although these listed aphid species were shown to be less efficient vectors of CTV than T. citricida and A. gossypii in experimental transmission studies, they are the predominant aphid species in some areas and are therefore likely to play a role in CTV spread, compensating for their poor transmission efficiency by their abundance (Marroquín et al., 2004).

The generic name should be abbreviated when it presents for the second time.


Recommended following the IPPC Style guide.

International Plant Protection Convention Page of

База данных защищена авторским правом © 2016
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка