Comparisons of protein profiles of beech bark disease resistant and susceptible American beech (Fagus grandifolia)

Table 1 Tree information including stand, field disease score, controlled test insect challenge result, and spot quantities

Tree name	Stand code ^a	Disease Condition ^b	Scale Interaction ^c	Total protein spots	Number of matched spots	Number of unique spots
1504	LM	H	R (8)	382	295	87
1506	LM	D	S (3)	197	184	13
CL01^d	CL	H	R (10)	258	241	17
CM01	CM	H	R (1)	280	270	10
CM02D^d	CM	D	S(11)	329	329	0
DT02^d	DT	H	R (2)	228	215	13
DT02D	DT	D	not tested	286	266	20
DTOA^d	DT	H	R (2)	522	421	101
JC01^d	JC	H	R (14)	367	338	29
JC02D	JC	D	S (4)	487	408	79
OD02^d	OD	H	R (10)	284	272	12
OD08D^d	OD	D	S (12)	239	225	14
RS01^d	RS	H	R (9)	288	265	23
RS02D	RS	D	S (7)	229	223	6
SL01^d	SL	H	R (4)	249	240	15
SL03^d	SL	H	R (8)	260	243	17

^aLM=Ludington, MI, USA; CL= Charlie Lake, NB, Can; CM= Curry Mountain, NB, Can; DT= Roachville, NB, Can; JC=Highfield, NB, Can; OD= Odell Park, Fredericton, NB, Can; RS= Regent St., Fredericton, NB, Can; SL=Spednick Lake, NB, Can.
^bH=Healthy (lacking scale infestation and signs of fungal infection), D= Diseased (beech bark disease present both scale infestation and fungal infection observed (on ortet) in the field).
^cTest result of artificial inoculation of grafted ramets with scale insect eggs. Result (number of ramets tested, i.e. replicates). R= Resistant, 0–5 avg. live scale, S= Susceptible, 30–100 avg. live scale and expected to sustain scale population and subsequent fungal infection.
^dCorrespondence to Ramirez et al. [16] CL01=E1, CM02d=H1, DT02=B3, DT0A=B1, JC01=C1, OD02=A2, OD08d=A3, RS01=I1, SL01=D1, and SL03=D3.

ISSN: 1477-5956