Seed Transmission of Fusarium verticillioides in Maize Plants Grown Under Three Different Temperature Regimes.

Fusarium verticillioides can be seed transmitted and cause systemic infection of maize; however, the frequency of these phenomena has varied widely among and within individual studies. In order to better understand this variability, we evaluated the effect of temperature on the first step in the systemic infection process, the transmission of F. verticillioides from seed to seedling. Seed of a commercial maize hybrid were inoculated with a strain of F. verticillioides that had been transformed with a gene for green fluorescent protein (GFP). The seed were planted in a greenhouse potting mix and incubated in growth chambers. Plants were incubated at one of three temperature regimes designed to simulate average and extreme temperatures occurring in Iowa during the weeks following planting. Root, mesocotyl, and stem tissues were sampled at growth stages V2 and V6, surface disinfested, and cultured on a semiselective medium. At V2, >90% of root and mesocotyl tissues was infected by the GFP-expressing strain at all three temperature regimes. Also at V2, infection was detected in 68 to 75% of stems. At V6, infection of root and mesocotyl tissues persisted and was detected in 97 to 100% of plants at all three temperature regimes. Plants also had symptomless systemic infection of belowground and aboveground internodes at V6. Infection of the three basal aboveground internodes was 24, 6, and 3% for the low-temperature regime; 35, 9, and 0% for the average-temperature regime; and 46, 24, and 9% for the high-temperature regime. Seed transmission and systemic infection occurred at all temperatures and did not differ significantly among treatments. These results indicate that, if maize seed is infected with F. verticillioides, seed transmission is common and symptomless systemic infection can be initiated under a broad range of temperature conditions.

Is glycohemoglobin testing useful in diabetes mellitus? Lessons from the diabetes control and complications trial.

To address the question, Do laboratory tests cost money or save money? we have used as a model for discussion a common chronic disease, diabetes mellitus, and a widely used laboratory test, that for glycohemoglobin, a measure of long-term glycemia used to manage diabetic patients. Diabetes mellitus is serious, highly prevalent, and costly. In 1992, $1 of every $7 spent on health in the US was for diabetes, predominantly for treatment of the chronic complications of the disease. The recently completed Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) demonstrated that development and progression of the chronic complications of diabetes are related to the degree of altered glycemia as quantified by determinations of glycohemoglobin. Thus, use of glycohemoglobin testing for routine diabetes care provides an objective measure of a patient's risk for developing diabetic complications. Results of this test can alert patients and health providers to the need for change in the treatment plan. Optimal use of glycohemoglobin testing for diabetes care will require standardization of test results.

Interlaboratory standardization of measurements of glycohemoglobins.

The diversity of methods used to measure glycohemoglobins (GHb) makes it difficult to compare patients' results among laboratories. We reported previously the feasibility of providing comparable results from different assays by use of common calibrators. We here compare results from seven different GHb methods calibrated by use of hemolysates assayed by a precise ion-exchange high-performance liquid-chromatographic (HPLC) method for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c). Thus, regardless of the GHb species measured by the seven methods, results were referenced to the HbA1c content of the calibrators. Without this calibration, GHb values for single samples varied, e.g., from 4.0% to 8.1% and from 10% to 14.2% in the normal and high ranges, respectively. Calibration decreased between-method variability (single sample ranges of, e.g., 4.8% to 5.4% and 9.4% to 10.2% in the normal and high ranges, respectively) and improved interassay precision. We conclude that this approach to calibration of GHb measurements allows direct comparison of results obtained by different methods and improves precision.