Final Report

Introduction of Panelists………………………………………………………………… 2

Bottom Line Up-Front (BLUF) ............................................................. 3

Brief Background ................................................................................ 4

Introduction… .................................................................................... 5

Recommendations for Grant Selection and Management ................ 7

Hypothetical Example of a Radar Diagram to Visualize a Project……..9

Proposed CRB Strategies for Selecting Projects .............................. 10

Proposed CRB Guidelines Changes for Project ................................ 10

Proposals and Progress Reports

Proposed CRB Strategies for Managing Selected Projects .............. 11

Specific Underexplored Project Ideas which Merit ......................... 11

CRB Consideration

Other Proposed CRB - funded Needs ............................................... 13

Appendix 1: Projects Reporting in Workshop… ............................... 14

Research Horticulturist, USDA/ARS, US Horticultural Research Lab, Fort Pierce, FL.

Experience in plant improvement, plant genetic resources, cultural practices to

enhance fruit quality and production, experimental design, and ag. industry

strategic planning.

ҫDirector, Texas A&M University-Kingsville Citrus Center, Weslaco, TX. Citrus

pathologist with 40 years’ experience of graft and vector transmitted diseases

including HLB.

Senior Program Officer, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA. Medical

entomologist with experience in insect control, biological control, operations

management, and product development.

Review the scientific content and quality of CRB’s portfolio on HLB and make

suggestions for improvement, changes in emphasis, and new directions. Structure of the meeting: The workshop was held in Davis, CA from August 15-17, 2017. Presenters and other participants (some invited, some self-selected) were encouraged to be actively involved in discussion for the entire workshop, to enhance cross-fertilization between disciplines. Prior to the workshop, panelists reviewed the power point slides for their assigned sections and advised presenters on improving their presentations. Each day of the meeting began with an external speaker, intended to stimulate discussion and thinking beyond the funded research topics. Individual presentations were provided on project proposals and progress, with subjects divided into groups, and with each moderated by one of the panelists (Strickman: ACP Biological Control and ACP Control; da Graҫa: CLas Avoidance and CLas Detection; Stover: Managing HLB Severity/Therapies and Citrus Variety Improvement). A listing of all currently funded and proposed research projects that were presented at the meeting are provided in Appendix 1. At the end of each section, the designated panelist summarized the content and posed questions to the attendees to stimulate discussion, focusing on underexplored priority needs and opportunities for collaborations and new core services that may expedite progress in controlling huanglongbing. The panelists then prepared this report.

1. Unsurprisingly, the need for urgent action to both develop and implement measures to slow the spread of HLB in California was abundantly apparent from the review.

2. The essential activities to slow the spread of HLB are:

a. Risk assessment: Current modeling, mapping, and DATOC efforts seem

adequate and necessary.

b. Surveillance: Early detection techniques are not adequate yet. We recommend

a blue-ribbon panel be convened in 2017 to assess and prioritize research and

development of diagnostics, followed by concentrated funding on those tools

judged feasible and necessary.

c. Control: i. Asian citrus psyllid: Insecticides and biological control are not adequate in

themselves to eliminate the potential for transmission. Development of

more effective, longer term solutions is essential while using current

methods to delay spread of the pathogen.

ii. CLas: Therapeutic methods are experimental, but effective measures should

be very useful to maintain commercial viability of groves while permanent

solutions (probably resistant GM or non-GM cultivars) are developed.

iii. CLas resistant citrus cultivars and/or ACP unable to acquire or transmit CLas

will likely be the permanent solution(s) for citrus production where CLas is

endemic

d. Sustainment: As permanent solutions are implemented and the HLB problem is

managed, there will be a continuing need to monitor dooryard and commercial

California citrus to prevent a resurgence of disease. It is not too early to develop

plans for a successful outcome in which California coordinates its citrus industry for

ongoing effective HLB control.

3. The CRB should consider more intensive management of some kinds of research projects. Most notably:

a. High risk projects: More speculative, exploratory projects should have clear,

measurable decision points at which they can be terminated or continued.

b. Product development: Projects that have as their objective the development

of a product should follow standard practice of preparing “use case analyses,”

integrated product development plans, consideration of regulatory barriers, and

consideration of intellectual property.

Citrus Huanglongbing (HLB) is a devastating disease of citrus associated with three bacterial species, Ca. Liberibacter asiaticus (CLas), Ca. L. africanus and Ca. L. americanus, which are transmitted by species of psyllids or triozids. CLas is the bacterium associated with all HLB reported in North America. The vector of CLas is the Asian citrus psyllid (ACP), Diaphorina citri, and as the names indicate, both pathogen and vector originated in Asia. Both are more heat tolerant than CLaf, CLam and the African vector, and the damage they inflict is generally more serious. During the 20th century, HLB spread from its suspected center of origin on the Indian subcontinent eastwards causing devastation to citrus cultivation in Southeast Asia and southern China, and westwards into the Arabian peninsula. Diaphorina citri arrived in South America by the 1940s, and Florida in the 1990s. Since the insect is not a major pest itself, it was not considered an economic pest in the absence of CLas, and was largely uncontrolled. When HLB was confirmed in Florida in 2005, it had already spread widely in the southern parts of the state, and within a few years it was found throughout the commercial citrus counties. The devastation to the citrus industry is enormous – 70% production loss, closure of many processing plants, subsequent loss of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars. Both vector and pathogen have become established in Texas, Mexico and throughout the Caribbean, and now ACP is well established in California.

California received early warning signals from Florida, and began taking steps to prepare for the arrival of the disease, such as surveying for the ACP and CLas, moving nursery production under screen, and implementing outreach programs to educate growers and the public. The psyllid has moved from the initial locations in southern California into new areas. As of August 31, 2017, there have been a total of 110 trees identified that were infected with CLas in California, and all have been in residential trees which were removed. The threat is real and is now here, and the urgency of the problem cannot be overstated. Early steps to slow the spread of the disease have placed California in a stronger position than Florida and elsewhere, but the fight must be intensified on all fronts to ensure the future viability of the industry.

1. Without intervention, HLB will greatly compromise the citrus industry in California.

2. A complete solution for HLB will require at least 10 years to implement on a large scale.

3. To slow the epidemic while solutions are developed, improved methods are needed for detection of CLas-infected trees shortly after transmission, so that infected trees can be quickly removed, and aggressive control of ACP is necessary to minimize further ingress into

commercial citrus orchards.

4. ACP control must be part of an overall IPM program, including good tree nutrition and excellent control of all pests and pathogens.

5. The California citrus industry must remain economically viable until a complete solution is available, to provide cash-flow to implement new plantings and any other measures required for HLB management.

6. Even if resistant varieties are found, it will still be necessary to identify therapies to maintain the economic viability of infected trees during the long period of transition to resistant types.

7. Multiple interventions will likely be necessary to solve the problem.

8. A data-driven approach to pathogen and vector management will be more economical and efficacious than a universal prophylactic approach.

The details of the elemental threat of HLB to California citrus do not require repeating, but some of the discussion and introductory material of the meeting brought up points worth emphasizing. The most general conclusion is the need for speedy response to the early phases of the HLB epidemic in the state. The hopeful note is that such action can slow the spread of HLB and maintain economic viability of the industry until more permanent solutions are developed. Less optimistic is that spread of HLB throughout the state seems inevitable based on experiences worldwide. It is a good assumption that California HLB is at the base of a classic epidemiological curve; therefore, if uncontrolled, we can expect exponential increases in HLB during the next few years. The faster that HLB spreads, the less time there will be to protect unaffected areas and the less time there will be to respond with systems that maintain economic viability. Control measures against ACP and removal of infected trees will be critical, near term tools to slow the spread of HLB. If there is one word to describe what is needed, it is urgency.

The CRB has been essential to building up research and development capacity in the fight against HLB. Others are also making progress, including those who have learned about different pathogens. Guest speakers at the meeting added much to the general discussion by covering: the technology development process in general; an important vectored plant pathogen with many possibilities for control; and a plant pathogen that remains uncontrolled. There were several lessons learned from these speakers. First, development of products from prototype to full impact is a deliberate process, the success of which is greatly increased by early planning. Considerations of intellectual property, licensing, regulation, manufacture, and profitability are necessary to see impact from the research funded by CRB. Second, careful biological study can result in new and potentially transformational interventions to control plant diseases. One example was the intricate regulation of adhesion in Xylella fastidiosa, the causative agent of Pierce’s disease and citrus variegated chlorosis. The normal signaling system of the bacteria can probably be disrupted by cheap application of a particular fatty acid. Finally, 17 years of study of sudden oak death has resulted in an understanding of how it spreads and maintains itself, resulting in impressive systems for risk assessment. Those systems are based on integration of good computer modeling and spatial analysis, supported by a detailed program of sampling at the ground level. Sampling and outreach includes extensive contribution by a network of citizen scientists.

Against this backdrop of urgency and the need to reach out widely for solutions, the content of the meeting suggested the following essential directions to manage and overcome the HLB threat to California:

Risk assessment: Tools and systems to prioritize efforts regionally, even before gathering

additional data on the ground. Risk assessment is essential to mobilize grower and government support, determine where to concentrate resources, and as a framework to update and help

understand unexpected changes.

Surveillance: Tools and systems to locate infections and vectors on the ground. Surveillance

provides the data for: targeting interventions; checking the effectiveness and quality of interventions; and understanding historical trends from analysis of cumulative archived

information.

Control and prevention: Tools and systems that prevent infection, modify infection, or

cure infection. Interventions should generally be used in logical combination and sequence, the basis of which may be from experience as well as experimentation.

Sustainment: The application of tools and systems to maintain adequate management of HLB

or to keep it out of a geographic area. Sustainment presents a political challenge, in that the

motivation for activity diminishes as the problem is controlled. Optimistic planning for successful

sustainment should be a part of work at all stages of development.

Each of these essential elements, and the tools/systems that make them work, will have a variety of factors that influence their eventual impact on citrus production. Consideration must be given to whether the tool is likely to be available in the near term or long term and, if the latter, whether it will be developed in time to accomplish its purpose. Each prospective tool should be evaluated multidimensionally to assess the likelihood of success and to discover potential flaws that would trigger termination of the project. Specific development plans to achieve impact may also identify overlooked aspects critical to success, many of which are likely to be outside scientific research.

Several agencies are involved in the organization of interventions into area-wide IPM programs. At a lower level, however, the technically optimum application of interventions is likely to require its own research effort. Testing combinations of techniques is notoriously difficult and should not be approached haphazardly. Gathering evidence that both informs and motivates will require area-wide trials, but the urgency of the problem makes it difficult to consider years-long trials before implementation. One solution to this quandary is to deploy new methods earlier in their development, taking the risk that they will live up to their claims. Such early deployment should be accompanied with adequate monitoring that develops the evidence base. Consensus on how to subsample large-scale roll- outs of experimental interventions will be essential to build that evidence base.

It is our opinion that resistant or tolerant trees and/or ACP incapable of acquisition or transmission of CLas will eventually be the long-term solutions to HLB in California and the world. Both goals can be achieved through advanced genetic manipulation of the organisms. Emerging CRISPR technologies and gene drive mechanisms may make implementation of these techniques possible in less than ten years. Regulatory hurdles for transgenic trees should not be especially onerous. Regulatory hurdles for release of transgenic psyllids may be lower than anticipated because of prior releases of other insects and less social sensitivity about the elimination of an invasive pest. In the meantime, methods for suppression of ACP numbers, early detection, tree health, and tree therapy are the best hopes for maintaining commercial viability of existing groves.

Explicitly and succinctly identify priority needs for the citrus industry and insure that there are proposals meeting all priority needs.

The current strategies in California should include emphasis on containment and limitation of HLB to prevent it from entering commercial groves.

Develop committees or workshops (including several outside experts for opportunity to identify potentially valuable technologies from other research areas) to assess opportunities for solicited proposals in specific areas and possibly from specific researchers. The list of highest priority subject areas we identified for group analysis was:

1) Diagnostic techniques

2) Therapeutic treatments of plants

3) CRISPR modification of scions and rootstocks

4) Product development

Reach for entirely new ideas through “Grand Challenges and Exploration”-like procedure (based on early phase, low cost projects initially testing innovative approaches, followed by

severe selection of projects for further development) that attracts input from well beyond the usual citrus research community. This process may benefit from use of an Innocentive-like

strategy (https://www.innocentive.com/; crowd-sourcing idea generation with potential for

financial reward). As ideas mature, solicit relevant proposals.

Recognize that the CRB research portfolio should include projects representing a range of low

risk to high risk, short time to implementation-long time to implementation, etc. From

proposals elicited by both open and directed RFPs, estimate their characteristics within this

“project parameter space”, with such parameters as below. May view first four parameters for

multiple projects in a simple four-dimensional space, to assess distribution for the entire

project portfolio, and/or all parameters for each project using “radar diagram” graphics

depicting strengths and weaknesses. (see Hypothetical Example on p. 9)

1) Economic impact of project success

2) Cost-benefit ratio (development and

implementation)

3) Timeline to implementation and impact

4) Likelihood of successful impact

5) Regulatory timeline and barriers

6) Ease of acceptance by public and consumers

7) Ease of acceptance by growers

Identify technologies that might be helpful to implementation of projects where

enabling progress can be achieved. E.g. technology to induce seedlessness (maybe

CRISPR knock-out) to prepare for high quality resistant citrus types but with undesirable seediness. (Such technologies might also be more broadly employed. For example,

when readily achieved, CRISPR-induced seedlessness could be used routinely in advanced breeding lines entering early testing, while also sustaining seedy source

plants for further breeding).

In this example, the relative importance (blue line) of each of the seven factors was estimated as a sort of target for the ideal outcome. Therefore, ease of acceptance by the public was considered of low importance; whereas, likelihood of successful impact was considered to be of maximum importance. A hypothetical estimate of proteomic detection (orange line) can be compared to the standard of relative importance. This representation would show that proteomic detection is well above standard in terms of acceptance, at least satisfactory on economic impact and regulatory issues, but somewhat weaker on cost-benefit ratio, timeline for development, and likelihood of success. Overall, the orange line in comparison to the blue one would have presented a favorable profile for proteomic detection, while also pointing out areas that might deserve more emphasis. For example, it might be wise to construct a detailed timeline for development to see where that timeline might be compressed. Current research is mostly about likelihood of successful impact, so those efforts should continue. Finally, it might not be too early to examine the pain-points on the cost of doing the test to look for ways it could be performed more cheaply.

If all projects were subjected to this kind of graphic representation, it might be much easier to represent their relative importance and to select research directions within each major category of effort.

Diagnostics: Proteomic Detection

Relative importance Proteomic detection

1)Economic impact of project success

10 7)Ease of acceptance

by growers

8 6 4 2 0

2)Cost-benefit ratio

6)Ease of acceptance by public

3)Timeline to implementation and…

5)Short regulatory timeline

4)Likelihood of successful impact

Identify projects that make more sense for funding by basic-science organizations. Where appropriate and of strong interest to industry, consider such projects for seed funding to generate preliminary data for greater likelihood of subsequent NSF or NIFA-funding, etc.

When a project is particularly forward looking, consider whether the technology is sufficiently mature to justify current investment.

Some high impact areas that are likely to achieve practical development may merit funding of multiple inter-related projects. There is value in encouraging independent research on novel targets with potential for very high impact.

When multiple projects focus on the same topic, or the same researcher has multiple funded projects, it may make sense to systematically review the justification for such a concentration of effort.

What is the potential upside of project success? Is a very small potential impact worth funding?

When working with for-profit partners, assure that costs are shared fairly. Such projects should include a product development plan from the beginning, with sources of funding identified for downstream development and manufacturing costs. When a company submits a proposal, CRB needs to be especially active in establishing IP sharing.

An objective knowledgeable external review is needed before funding to realistically assess IP and regulatory issues. The researchers proposing a project may not have appropriate expertise in these areas.

Assess costs and verify they are reasonable.

When there are multiple projects proposed using the same commercial technology, determine whether this makes sense.

Ask researchers to devote one slide to ongoing related research, include results from meeting abstracts and Citrograph (to facilitate, CRB should maintain complete archive of Citrograph articles and CRB-funded project titles, maybe also project reports, and links to CRDF and other major citrus-funding and research organizations.)

Where similar research has been done on other crops, include such data where relevant. Were results implemented? If not why not?

Require statistical rigor in reaching conclusions. If inexpensive to implement, statistical significance may not need to be at the 5% level, but researchers need to present data supporting the significance of their results.

Early timeline deliverables should be met for sustained funding in most cases. Researchers must understand that they should deliver enough detail in progress to justify funding. Perhaps can share in closed door session to sustain IP protection.

CRB needs to be more actively involved in developing some research.

Identify projects requiring grower cooperators for research projects and identify/designate cooperators when funded. A project slowed by failure to find experimental sites is unacceptable.

Follow higher-risk projects closely and be prepared to cut funding when they appear to be dead-ends. Such projects should be designed with firm go/no-go stage gates.

As projects advance, determine which projects merit possible accelerated implementation Conduct early use case analysis. Initiate product development plan as soon as reasonable (CRB may need to form a Commercial Product Development Committee).

Where project findings have specificity which may not be broadly applicable, ask researcher to conduct literature review to assess likelihood of transferability to other (or all) major CA citrus areas.

Conduct a review of the regulatory hurdles that will delay implementation in a project if successful. Consider outside consultant to review? Maybe could be potential partner for commercialization and therefore low or no cost? Consider developing CRADA-like mechanism to achieve?

Projects of high priority with potential short-term benefit

Immunological concentration of bacteria in samples to increase the sensitivity of PCR-based detection for EDT+/PCR- trees, such as magnetic beads coated with CLas-specific antibodies.

Broad survey of microbial populations between EDT+/PCR- and EDT- trees to determine if there are other organisms that EDTs may detect? Maybe use phyllochip technology?

Compare EDTs head to head. Include broad sampling of leaves for PCR. Run immunologically concentrated qPCR for CLas.

Epidemiological analysis on their impacts on spread of epidemic for EDT false negative rates / false positive rates and various biocontrol method success rates. Include possibility of combining a cheap high sensitivity screen with a more expensive high selectivity screen. What percentage biocontrol is needed for meaningful suppression of ACP?

Assess DNA/ RNA from HLB finds in CA. Is there a correlation between other pathogens and high CLas titer? Is there a pattern in cultivars affected?

Compare CA and FL CLas strains for titer development, systemic movement, etc? May be critical to accurate epidemiological models.

Is it practical to develop methods for enhancing syrphid fly populations for ACP biocontrol in urban, organic, or conventional orchards? Data from Hoddle trials showed they were responsible for more ACP death than Tamarixia.

Run models to assess benefit of ACP biocontrol releases in areas just beyond known ACP range. Is this a waste of money or a valuable component to limit ACP spread?

Thermotherapy- it reduces CLas, can it be implemented? Perhaps most importantly- does natural thermotherapy in CA have an effect? May guide expanded plantings now.

Projects of high priority with potential medium-term benefit

Exploratory research to identify CRISPR targets in citrus, most immediately, focusing on potential genes that suppress HLB when knocked out.

Assessing putative HLB-tolerant cultivars for horticultural traits, ACP colonization, and HLB development. Analyze in all 5 citrus areas of CA where possible (for now, BSL-3 only for HLB; few areas for ACP).

Aggressive testing of HLB response in major CA citrus varieties to CA strains, including fruit quality assessments. Lemon is reported to be HLB-tolerant, but what effect does HLB have on lemon fruit quality and yield decline with HLB? Maybe this tolerance is invaluable where lemons are grown, or demands of fresh fruit sales may make any compromise in fruit quality unacceptable.

Large survey of CLas strains to potentially identify cross-protective alternatives?

Development of a Spiroplasma or Phytoplasma as a cross-protective agent?

Use in-silico methods to identify quorum signaling molecule for CLas in-planta. May be an ideal EDT and interdiction target.

Effect of delivery method and adjuvants (cell penetrating peptides etc.) on nano-particle efficacy / and tissue targeting specificity.

Identify receptor sites for CLas molecules in plant and ACP. This may be a critical foundation for interdiction.

Understanding roles of genera in rhizobiomes and influence on root structure and function,

Projects of high priority with potential long-term benefit

Other anti-CLas bactericide formulations? They now can design molecules targeting specific molecular structures.

ACP transformation has received too little attention. Could be a game changer if can engineer trait to prevent acquisition or transmission and use gene drive to incorporate in wild populations.

Consider massive mutation effort for Navel, Lemon, and Tango. Screen for strong HLB resistance/tolerance. This COULD be a solution. There must be a critical factor in citrus phloem that allows HLB-development, since most plants are not susceptible to CLas-infection, and if knocked out may result in HLB-resistance. This would be expensive and could go nowhere, or could permit sustained production with cultivars already in demand, and with no regulatory hurdles.

Workshops on identified priority project areas that will especially benefit from collective discussion. Emphasize the importance that participants focus on the big picture rather than serve solely as advocates for their own work. 1) Review EDTs, establish criteria and mechanism for objectively comparing them. (This is

underway, but may benefit from further review). 2) Is ACP sampling for CLas adequate? Are there enough systematic efforts to collect and

pool psyllids for CLas detection? Is sufficient attention paid to detectable CLas above established CLas+ Ct threshold? May be best to err on the side of excessive sampling.

3) Considerable effort has gone into public awareness of citrus greening, but are there missed opportunities? Maybe spin the fight against HLB as a war to maintain backyard citrus in California? Make citizens aware that backyard citrus is almost gone in Florida? Mobilize Master Gardeners and “Citizen Scientists”? Learn what has been most successful in sudden oak death fight? Focus on leaf symptoms and triage initial reports by asking for photographs with submissions (smart phones are ubiquitous). How many calls does CDFA get per week with potential HLB finds? Compare methods for cost per putative find?

4) Develop a database for functional genomics of citrus and key pathogens to facilitate CRSPR and other technologies. Fund projects identified.

Core services to consider 1) CRISPR core service in near future?

External reviews to consider 1) Meet with regulators on breadth of genome changes that will not be considered

transgenic? This is a moving target and CRB involvement may drive firm policies. 2) When time permits, conduct external review of CRB funded projects for the last ten years.

Analyze within the context of multi-dimensional parameter space (above, page 8, item E) and other identified traits (e.g. researcher vs. companies funded etc.). The objective would be to help fine tune selection process for R&D, and identify elements that predict successful impact, while understanding you likely are not reaching broadly enough if there are not a considerable number of failures.

Other CRB Functions 1) Develop a framework for commercializing research products. Construct “Product

Development Plans”. Consider a Commercial Product Development Committee and possibly developing CRADA-like mechanism to find partners.

2) Participate more aggressively in campaign to educate public on biotechnology 3) Consider using CRB to directly hire some staff to overcome bureaucratic hurdles (i.e. ARS

hiring freeze) 4) Negotiate more rapid release of CDFA PCR data to UCR farm and variety collection. Give

actual Ct rather than +/-. There seemed to be a divergence of opinions as to whether this was already in place.

5) Consider how SBIR grants may help leverage resources for implementation of some products.

The following tables summarize the CRB-funded projects that were presented at the meeting:

5500-205 Jawwad Qureshi Toxicity of synthetic and organic insecticides to Tamarixia

radiata

5500-189E Jawwad Qureshi Development of an ACP Management Plan for Organic Citrus

5500-196 Richard Stouthamer Biological control of Asian citrus psyllid in California

5500-191 Mark Hoddle Host specificity testing of Diaphorencyrtus aligarhensis

5500-194 Mark Hoddle Release and monitoring of Tamarixia radiata and phenology of

Asian citrus psyllid in Southern California

5500-17N Mark Hoddle FarmSense-Real Time Insect Population Monitoring for Citrus: Psyllid-Argentine Ants-Parasiticwasps

5500-189 ElizabethGrafton-

Cardwell

Optimizing chemical control of Asian citrus psyllid in California

5300-163 Michelle Cilia Not all psyllids are created equal: Why do some transmit

Liberibacter and others do not?

5300- 155 Michelle Cilia Using mass spectrometry technologies to develop novel citrus

insect vector management tools

5300-169 Bryce Falk Artificial microRNA-based targeting of the Asian citrus psyllid for

HLB management

5300-17-C Bryce Falk RNAi-based targeting D. citri innate immunity as a way to help

manage HLB

5500-17F Rodrigo Krugner Control of Asian citrus psyllid and glassy-winged sharpshooter

with vibration inhibition methods

5500-17G Mamoudou Setamou Armoring grove borders to prevent ACP infestations and CLas

infection within productive groves

5500-17H Paul Zorner Novel tools for integrated pest management in California citrus

5500-17J Frank Byrne Implementing a Resistance Monitoring Program for ACP in

California Citrus

5300-154 Tim Gottwald Risk-based decision making in the management of huanglongbing

5500-17C Tim Gottwald Agent-based model to predict/monitor the efficacy and cost of

various ACP/HLB control strategies

5300-182 Neil McRoberts HLB DATOC: Data Analysis and Tactical Operations Cell

5300-178 Neil McRoberts FL-1 Longitudinal (time course) study of HLB EDT suspect trees in

Florida and California

5300-181 Neil McRoberts California-1B

5300-183 Dan Willey Engaging non-English speaking citrus hobbyists to reduce spread

of ACP and HLB

5300-17BB Dan Willey Engaging Citrus Hobbyists Online to Reduce the Spread of HLB

and Citrus Psyllids

5300-174 Ray Yokomi Establish a system to infect and maintain Nicotiana benthamiana

and citrus with recombinant CTV

5300-158 James Ng Construction of the cloned infectious cDNA of Citrus tristeza virus

(Californiaisolate)

5300-17-I James Ng High performance California-derived CTV-based vectors for the

control of HLB and other applications

5300-17EE James Borneman Culture to Management – An Approach to Cultivate and Eradicate

the HLB-Associated Bacterium

5300-17KK Peggy Mauk Ensuring Security and Integrity of Valuable Breeding, Research,

and Germplasm Collections

5300-176 Greg McCollum Improving early detection of HLB via ACP nymph/citrus flush

sampling

5300-150 Carolyn Slupsky Biomarkers for detection of Liberibacter infection in citrus trees

through1H-NMR-based metabolomics

5300-17GG Carolyn Slupsky Automation of the Metabolomics Method for High Throughput

5300-161 Kris Godfrey Infrastructure support for research on detection and

management of huanglongbing and Asian citrus psyllid

5300-173 Kris Godfrey Effect of mixed infections of plant pathogens on detection of HLB

using two early detection methods

5100-153 Georgios Vidalakis &

Fatima Osman

Real time-PCR Co-detection of Candidatus Liberibacter species

and Spiroplasma citri

5300-17AA Raymond Yokomi Improved multiplex qPCR protocol for simultaneous diagnosis of

HLB and stubborn disease pathogens

5300-17-Y Jianchi Chen An NGS-based system for unambiguous detection of HLB

pathogen

5300-17-G DanielleKalkofen Development of a Rapid and Sensitive Biosensor Based Assay for

CLas Secreted Proteins

5300-17-EJ JeanetteSimpson Development of a Rapid and Sensitive Assay for the

Prediagnostic Detection of HLB in Citrus Trees

5300-17JJ Gitta Coaker Greenhouse assays to rapidly evaluate citrus genotypes for

tolerance or resistance to CLas

5100-155 Johan Leveau Citrus rhizobiomes and tree productivity in response to soil

manipulations

5300-164 Johan Leveau & Philippe

Rolshausen

A microbiota-based approach to citrus tree health

5500-211 Philippe Rolshausen Citrus undercover production system (CUPS) for California

5200-149 Georgios Vidalakis Streamlining the introduction of license citrus varieties into

California: A case study-Florida

5300-171 Brent Sumerlin Photosynthate-responsive polymeric nano-carriers for phloem-

specific delivery in the treatment of HLB

5300-177 Kris Godfrey Interaction of endemic plant pathogens with Candidatus

Liberibacter asiaticus in citrus

5500-17L Jim Adaskaveg Development of antimicrobials as potential treatments for

managing HLB

5200-142 James Thomson Utilization of founder lines for improved citrus biotechnology via

RMCE

5300-165 James Thomson Development of mature budwood formation technology

5200-17F James Thomson Identification of Fruit Specific Founder Lines for RMCE gene

stacking

5200-146 Gloria Moore Rapid cycling plant breeding in citrus

5200-147 Chandrika Ramadugu Evaluation of hybrids of citrus and citrus relatives for

huanglongbing (HLB) tolerance or resistance

5200-17E Chandrika Ramadugu Development of HLB resistance through inarching novel, disease

tolerant hybrids and through breeding

5200-151 Vivian Irish Developing improved gene-editing technologies for citrus

5200-153 Eliezer Louzada Development of "all Plant" transgenic citrus with potential broad

spectrum disease resistance using gene gun

5300-170 Hong Lin Develop a novel target-basis of anti-virulence strategy for

controlling HLB

5200-17A Gayle Volk Securing Vulnerable Citrus Germplasm

5200-17H Sean Cutler Inducible flowering for accelerated citrus breeding

mailto:research@citrusresearch.org