scholarly journals Turnip aphids (Lipaphis erysimi) discriminate host plants based on the strain of Cauliflower mosaic virus infection

2019 ◽  
pp. 69
Author(s):  
Mustafa Adhab, Deborah Finke, James Schoelz
Keyword(s):  
Virus Infection ◽  
Mosaic Virus ◽  
Feeding Preference ◽  
Cauliflower Mosaic Virus ◽  
Lipaphis Erysimi ◽  
Severe Stunting ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Different Strains ◽  
Aphid Host ◽  
Virus Strains

The degree of vector preference for virus-infected plants can alter the progress of virus epidemics. The objective of this study is to test whether infection of turnip plants with different strains of Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) can influence the feeding preference of the turnip aphid (Lipaphis erysimi). Three different strains of CaMV that cause different types of symptoms on turnips were used in this study. These strains were NY8153 (severe, causes necrosis of the midrib and mottling with severe stunting), W260 (mild, causes mosaic with moderate stunting) and H12 (symptomless). Results showed that turnip aphids preferred W260-infected plants, in general. When given a choice, aphids chose W260-infected plants significantly more often than NY8153-infected or healthy plants. W260-infected vs. H12-infected plants showed a trend in the same direction. Also, aphids chose plants infected with H12 more often than healthy plants when given a choice. By contrast, turnip aphids showed no preference between NY8153-infected and healthy plants, or between NY8153-infected and H12-infected plants. Therefore, we conclude that aphids can recognize plants infected with different strains of CaMV and will choose plants with specific strains over others. Specifically, aphids prefer W260-infected turnips over other choices. These results suggest that virus infection affects the aphid host choice and this may have implications for the spread of different virus strains.

Factors that influence the movement of Cauliflower mosaic virus in susceptible and resistant plants

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Mustafa Ali Adhab
Keyword(s):  
Mosaic Virus ◽  
Cell Movement ◽  
Aphid Transmission ◽  
Cauliflower Mosaic Virus ◽  
Lipaphis Erysimi ◽  
University Of Missouri ◽  
Molecular Virology ◽  
Different Strains ◽  
The University ◽  
Virus Survival

[ACCESS RESTRICTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI AT AUTHOR'S REQUEST.] Since the first description of Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV), it has been the subject of many research papers, both as a model system for plant molecular virology and for the diseases it causes in major winter crops. CaMV has been associated with a number of ground-breaking papers. Movement through the plant is a necessary step for virus survival. For this reason, each viral protein is likely to interact with multiple host factors. Inactivation of one or more of these multiple interactions could lead to a delay in viral movement. The 40 kDa CaMV P1 movement protein (P1) is an essential protein in CaMV cell-to-cell movement. A CaMV mutant virus that contained a non-functional gene I coding sequence was not able to cause a systematic infection in plants, but the accumulation of encapsidated forms of virion DNA could still be detected, which indicated that P1 is not involved in CaMV replication. Upon transient expression in plant protoplasts, the P1 protein alone is sufficient to cause the formation of tubular extensions projecting out of the cell membrane. Furthermore, P1 is also able to induce the formation of tubules in whole leaves upon agroinfiltration into Nicotiana benthamiana leaves. ... Aphid transmission is essential for CaMV spread in nature. Previous studies have shown that the degree of aphid preference for virus-infected plants can alter the progress of virus epidemics. I tested whether infection of turnip plants (Brassica rapa L. var. rapa) with different strains of CaMV can influence turnip aphids’ (Lipaphis erysimi) choice of host. Three different strains of CaMV that cause different types of symptoms on turnips were used in this study. These strains were NY8153 (severe), W260 (mild) and H12 (symptomless). I found that turnip aphids preferred W260-infected plants more than NY8153-, H12-infected or healthy plants. I concluded that aphids can recognize different strains of CaMV and will choose plants with specific strains over others; specifically aphids prefer W260-infected turnips over other choices. These results suggest that virus infection affects the aphid host choice and this in turn may have implications for the spread of different virus strains.

scholarly journals The 5′ Third of Cauliflower mosaic virus Gene VI Conditions Resistance Breakage in Arabidopsis Ecotype Tsu-0

2002 ◽  
Vol 92 (2) ◽  
pp. 190-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Agama ◽  
S. Beach ◽  
J. Schoelz ◽  
S. M. Leisner
Keyword(s):  
Arabidopsis Thaliana ◽  
Mosaic Virus ◽  
Viral Genome ◽  
Plant Defenses ◽  
Cauliflower Mosaic Virus ◽  
Virus Gene ◽  
Arabidopsis Ecotype ◽  
Passive Mechanism ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Solanaceous Plants

Arabidopsis thaliana ecotypes vary in their responses to viruses. In this study, we analyzed the variation in response of A. thaliana ecotype Tsu-0 to Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV). This ecotype was previously reported to be resistant to two CaMV isolates (CM1841 and CM4-184), but susceptible to W260. In this study, we show that Tsu-0 is resistant to four additional CaMV isolates. CaMV propagated within the rosette leaves of Tsu-0 plants, but did not appear to spread systemically into the inflorescence. However, virus viability in rosette leaves of Tsu-0 plants apparently was not compromised because infectious CaMV could be recovered from these organs. W260 overcomes Tsu-0 resistance by a passive mechanism (i.e., this virus avoids activating plant defenses). The portion of the viral genome responsible for W260 resistance breakage was mapped to the 5′ third of gene VI, which we have termed RBR-1. This region is also responsible for controlling the ability of CaMV to infect different types of solanaceous plants. Hence, the pathways by which plants of different families interact with CaMV may be conserved through evolution.

scholarly journals Natural variation of Arabidopsis thaliana responses to Cauliflower mosaic virus infection upon water deficit

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. e1008557
Author(s):  
Sandy E. Bergès ◽  
François Vasseur ◽  
Alexis Bediée ◽  
Gaëlle Rolland ◽  
Diane Masclef ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Arabidopsis Thaliana ◽  
Virus Infection ◽  
Mosaic Virus ◽  
Water Deficit ◽  
Natural Variation ◽  
Cauliflower Mosaic Virus ◽  
Mosaic Virus Infection

scholarly journals Arabidopsis thaliana as a model for the study of plant–virus co-evolution

2010 ◽  
Vol 365 (1548) ◽  
pp. 1983-1995 ◽  
Author(s):  
Israel Pagán ◽  
Aurora Fraile ◽  
Elena Fernandez-Fueyo ◽  
Nuria Montes ◽  
Carlos Alonso-Blanco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Arabidopsis Thaliana ◽  
Virus Infection ◽  
Mosaic Virus ◽  
Plant Virus ◽  
Cauliflower Mosaic Virus ◽  
Growth Stages ◽  
Virus Species ◽  
Life Styles ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
Virus Genotypes

Understanding plant–virus coevolution requires wild systems in which there is no human manipulation of either host or virus. To develop such a system, we analysed virus infection in six wild populations of Arabidopsis thaliana in Central Spain. The incidence of five virus species with different life-styles was monitored during four years, and this was analysed in relation to the demography of the host populations. Total virus incidence reached 70 per cent, which suggests a role of virus infection in the population structure and dynamics of the host, under the assumption of a host fitness cost caused by the infection. Maximum incidence occurred at early growth stages, and co-infection with different viruses was frequent, two factors often resulting in increased virulence. Experimental infections under controlled conditions with two isolates of the most prevalent viruses, cauliflower mosaic virus and cucumber mosaic virus, showed that there is genetic variation for virus accumulation, although this depended on the interaction between host and virus genotypes. Comparison of Q ST -based genetic differentiations between both host populations with F ST genetic differentiation based on putatively neutral markers suggests different selection dynamics for resistance against different virus species or genotypes. Together, these results are compatible with a hypothesis of plant–virus coevolution.

scholarly journals Uncoupling Resistance from Cell Death in the Hypersensitive Response of Nicotiana Species to Cauliflower mosaic virus Infection

2001 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony B. Cole ◽  
Lóránt Király ◽  
Kathleen Ross ◽  
James E. Schoelz
Keyword(s):  
Cell Death ◽  
Virus Infection ◽  
Mosaic Virus ◽  
Hypersensitive Response ◽  
Cauliflower Mosaic Virus ◽  
Resistance Response ◽  
Pr Protein ◽  
Pathogenesis Related ◽  
Lines Of Evidence ◽  
Mosaic Virus Infection

Cauliflower mosaic virus strain W260 elicits a hypersensitive response (HR) in leaves of Nicotiana edwardsonii, an interspecific hybrid derived from a cross between N. glutinosa and N. clevelandii. Interestingly, we found that N. glutinosa is resistant to W260, but responds with local chlorotic lesions rather than necrotic lesions. In contrast, N. clevelandii responds to W260 with systemic cell death. The reactions of the progenitors of N. edwardsonii to W260 infection indicated that each contributed a factor toward the development of HR. In this study, we present two lines of evidence to show that the resistance and cell death that comprise the HR elicited by W260 can indeed be uncoupled. First, we showed that the non-necrotic resistance response of N. glutinosa could be converted to HR when these plants were crossed with N. clevelandii. Second, we found that cell death and resistance segregated independently in the F2 population of a cross between N. edwardsonii and N. clevelandii. We concluded that the resistance of N. edwardsonii to W260 infection was conditioned by a gene derived from N. glutinosa, whereas cell death was conditioned by a gene derived from N. clevelandii. An analysis of pathogenesis-related (PR) protein expression in response to W260 infection revealed that elicitation of PR proteins was associated with resistance rather than with the onset of cell death.

Thymidine-3H uptake by X-bodies associated with cauliflower mosaic virus infection

Virology ◽  
1969 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 506-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Kamei ◽  
M. Rubio-Huertos ◽  
C. Matsui
Keyword(s):  
Virus Infection ◽  
Mosaic Virus ◽  
Cauliflower Mosaic Virus ◽  
Mosaic Virus Infection

Strains of Sugarcane Mosaic Virus in Puerto Rico

1969 ◽  
Vol 56 (3) ◽  
pp. 292-300
Author(s):  
Lii-Jang Liu
Keyword(s):  
Puerto Rico ◽  
Puerto Rican ◽  
Mosaic Virus ◽  
Great Majority ◽  
Sugarcane Mosaic Virus ◽  
Sucrose Content ◽  
Severe Stunting ◽  
Differential Hosts ◽  
Virus Strains ◽  
Effect On Growth

The great majority of the sugarcane mosaic virus collections from Puerto Rican fields were identified as strain A, B, and D on the basis of symptoms induced on differential hosts C.P. 31294, C.P. 29291, Co. 281, Black Cheribon, and C.P. 31588. Strain A caused little effect on growth and sucrose content of C.P. 31294 while strain D caused severe stunting and reduced sucrose content of the same variety. Strain A was most frequently obtained from sugarcane fields in the Central Rufina area where B. 34104 was planted. Strain D was most frequently obtained from fields in the Central Aguirre area where B. 37161 was planted. Puerto Rican varieties differed greatly in their susceptibility to local mosaic virus strains. Forty-percent mosaic infection was obtained when variety P.R. 980 was inoculated with strain A. This same variety however, developed no mosaic symptoms when inoculated with strain B. Canes recovered from either strain A or strain B can be reinfected in many cases by the same virus strains.

Use of simulations to evaluate the effectiveness of barrier precautions to prevent patient-to-patient transfer of healthcare-associated pathogens

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Heba Alhmidi ◽  
Daniel F. Li ◽  
Jennifer L. Cadnum ◽  
Muhammed F. Haq ◽  
Natalia C. Pinto-Herrera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mosaic Virus ◽  
Pathogen Transmission ◽  
Cauliflower Mosaic Virus ◽  
Surrogate Markers ◽  
Fluorescent Tracer ◽  
Clostridioides Difficile ◽  
Bacteriophage Ms2 ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Healthcare Associated ◽  
Standardized Examinations

Abstract Background: There is controversy regarding whether the addition of cover gowns offers a substantial benefit over gloves alone in reducing personnel contamination and preventing pathogen transmission. Design: Simulated patient care interactions. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of different types of barrier precautions and to identify routes of transmission. Methods: In randomly ordered sequence, 30 personnel each performed 3 standardized examinations of mannequins contaminated with pathogen surrogate markers (cauliflower mosaic virus DNA, bacteriophage MS2, nontoxigenic Clostridioides difficile spores, and fluorescent tracer) while wearing no barriers, gloves, or gloves plus gowns followed by examination of a noncontaminated mannequin. We compared the frequency and routes of transfer of the surrogate markers to the second mannequin or the environment. Results: For a composite of all surrogate markers, transfer by hands occurred at significantly lower rates in the gloves-alone group (OR, 0.02; P < .001) and the gloves-plus-gown group (OR, 0.06; P = .002). Transfer by stethoscope diaphragms was common in all groups and was reduced by wiping the stethoscope between simulations (OR, 0.06; P < .001). Compared to the no-barriers group, wearing a cover gown and gloves resulted in reduced contamination of clothing (OR, 0.15; P < .001), but wearing gloves alone did not. Conclusions: Wearing gloves alone or gloves plus gowns reduces hand transfer of pathogens but may not address transfer by devices such as stethoscopes. Cover gowns reduce the risk of contaminating the clothing of personnel.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document