Differences of Three Ampeloviruses' Multiplication in Plant May Explain Their Incidences in Vineyards

Velasco, L.; Bota, Josefina; Montero, Rafael Villar; Cretazzo, Enrico

doi:10.1094/pdis-04-13-0433-re

Cited by 28 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Unfortunately such studies have not included phloem-limited viruses, and information is lacking. However, quantitative PCR estimates of individual GLRaVs in hosts with single and mixed infections found no significant effect of coinfection on the population of each virus, which supports the notion that the two viruses are not interacting with each other (Velasco et al 2013). Gouveia and Nolasco (2012) found differences among GLRaV-3 variants in the suppressing activity of the p19.7 silencing suppressor, suggesting that variants may differ in their ability to overcome host plant defenses.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

“…A better understanding of apparent competition and resource competition between pathogens could lead to improved prediction of pathogen spread. While new infections can be reliably detected within 4 mo after inoculation (Tsai et al 2008), temporal dynamics within the host plant exist and may differ among variants (Tsai et al 2012, Velasco et al 2013. Therefore the timing of inoculation with different pathogen variants or prior infection status of the experimentally inoculated host may affect the outcome of pathogen interactions, and exploration of these dynamics is needed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Interactions Within Susceptible Hosts Drive Establishment of Genetically Distinct Variants of an Insect-Borne Pathogen

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Coinfections are common, leading to pathogen interactions during transmission and establishment in a host. However, few studies have tested the relative strengths of pathogen interactions in vectors and hosts that determine the outcome of infection. We tested interactions between two genetically distinct variants of the mealybug-transmitted Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3. The transmission efficiency of each variant in single variant inoculations by two vector species was determined. The effects of vector species, a coinfected source, and simultaneous inoculation from multiple hosts to one host on variant establishment were examined. Within-vector interactions could have a role in transmission from hosts containing mixed infections, but not when vectors were moved from separate singly infected source plants to a single recipient plant. The invasive Planococcus ficus (Signoret) was a more efficient vector than Pseudococcus viburni (Signoret). Transmission efficiency of the two variants did not differ in single variant inoculations. Overall infections were the same whether from singly or coinfected source plants. In mixed inoculations, establishment of one variant was reduced. Mixed inoculations from two singly infected source plants resulted in fewer mixed infections than expected by chance. Therefore, the observed outcome was determined subsequent to host inoculation rather than in the vector. The outcome may be due to resource competition between pathogens. Alternatively apparent competition may be responsible; the pathogens' differential ability to overcome host defenses and colonize the host may determine the final outcome of new infections. Detailed knowledge of interactions between pathogens during transmission and establishment could improve understanding and management of disease spread.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactions Within Susceptible Hosts Drive Establishment of Genetically Distinct Variants of an Insect-Borne Pathogen

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the beginning of the growing season virus concentration is low (Tsai et al ). This would explain why in this study the virus amount was lower than the values obtained in other studies (Velasco et al ). Although the virus concentration was low and no symptoms of the infection were observed, infected plants showed physiological disturbances.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 73%

Alterations in primary and secondary metabolism in Vitis vinifera ‘Malvasía de Banyalbufar’ upon infection with Grapevine leafroll‐associated virus 3

Montero¹,

Pérez-Bueno

Barón

et al. 2016

Physiologia Plantarum

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant defense mechanisms against pathogens result in differential regulation of various processes of primary and secondary metabolism. Imaging techniques, such as fluorescence imaging and thermography, are very valuable tools providing spatial and temporal information about these processes. In this study, effects of Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3 (GLRaV-3) on grapevine physiology were analyzed in pot-grown asymptomatic plants of the white cultivar Malvasía de Banyalbufar. The virus triggered changes in the activity of photosynthesis and secondary metabolism. There was a decrease in the photorespiratory intermediates glycine and serine in infected plants, possibly as a defense response against the infection. The content of malate, which plays an important role in plant metabolism, also decreased. These results correlate with the increased non-photochemical quenching found in infected plants. On the other hand, the concentration of flavonols (represented by myricetin, kaempferol and quercetin derivatives) and hydroxycinnamic acids (which include derivatives of caffeic acid) increased following infection by the virus. These compounds could be responsible for the increase in multicolor fluorescence F440 (blue fluorescence) and F520 (green fluorescence) on the leaves, and changes in the fluorescence parameters F440/F680, F440/F740, F520/F680, F520/F740 and F680/F740. The combined analysis of chlorophyll fluorescence kinetics and blue-green fluorescence emitted by phenolics could constitute disease signatures allowing the discrimination between GLRaV-3 infected and non-infected plants at very early stage of infection, prior to the development of symptoms.

show abstract

“…Grapevine leafroll disease is one of the most important virus diseases in grapevine ( Vitis vinifera L.) and it is widespread in all major grape‐growing regions of the world. Several members from the Closteroviridae family are associated with leafroll diseases (Mannini et al ., ), but Grapevine leafroll‐associated virus 3 (GLRaV‐3, genus Ampelovirus ) is regarded as the most widespread attributed to its high replication efficiency (Velasco et al ., ). GLRaV‐3 infection is systemic in vine, being generally localised in the vascular plant tissue (phloem) like other members of the Closteroviridae family.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Effects of Grapevine leafroll‐associated virus 3 on the physiology in asymptomatic plants of Vitis vinifera

Montero

ouad

Pacifico

et al. 2017

Annals of Applied Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grapevine leafroll disease is one of the most important viral diseases of grapevine (Vitis vinifera) worldwide. Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3 (GLRaV-3) is the most predominant virus species causing this disease. Therefore, it is important to identify GLRaV-3 effects, especially in plants which do not systematically show visual symptoms. In this study, effects of GLRaV-3 on grapevine physiology were evaluated in asymptomatic plants of Malvasía de Banyalbufar and Cabernet Sauvignon cvs. Absolute virus quantification was performed in order to determine the level of infection of the treatment. The net carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) assimilation (A N ) and electron transport rate (J flux ) were the main parameters affected by the virus. The A N reduction in infected plants was attributed to restrictions in CO 2 diffusion caused by anatomical leaf changes and a reduction of Rubisco activity. Those effects were more evident in Malvasia de Banyalbufar plants. The reduction of A N leads to a decrease in the total oxygen uptake rate by the activity of the cytochrome oxidase pathway, producing slight differences in plant growth. Therefore, even though no symptoms were expressed in the plants, the effects of the virus compromised the plant vital processes, showing the importance of early detection of the virus in order to fight against the infection.Closteroviridae family. In red varieties, symptoms of GLRaV-3 are easily identified, noticeable as dark-red, downward rolling leaves with green veins, but the infection is almost asymptomatic in white varieties. The difficulty in detecting virus can lead to rapid spread of virus-infected material through propagation. Diagnostic methods for the detection of grapevine viruses have been developed over the last few years. These methods include: biological indexing (Habili et al., 1992), enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Rowhani, 1992;Frosline et al., 1996;Rowhani et al., 1997) and nucleic acid-based methods, mainly PCR methods (Minafra et al.Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3 effects on plant physiology R. Montero et al.

show abstract

Differences of Three Ampeloviruses' Multiplication in Plant May Explain Their Incidences in Vineyards

Cited by 28 publications

References 40 publications

Interactions Within Susceptible Hosts Drive Establishment of Genetically Distinct Variants of an Insect-Borne Pathogen

Interactions Within Susceptible Hosts Drive Establishment of Genetically Distinct Variants of an Insect-Borne Pathogen

Alterations in primary and secondary metabolism in Vitis vinifera ‘Malvasía de Banyalbufar’ upon infection with Grapevine leafroll‐associated virus 3

Effects of Grapevine leafroll‐associated virus 3 on the physiology in asymptomatic plants of Vitis vinifera

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About