Effect of EDTA on cucumber mosaic virus and its application in purification

Takanami, Yoichi; Tomaru, Keiichi

doi:10.1016/0042-6822(69)90211-6

Cited by 22 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Devergne & Cardin (1973) divided CMV strains into three major serogroups: DTL, ToRS and Co, with the majority of isolates faUing into the DTL and ToRS serogroups. Jn Japan and Germany, similar typing of CMV isolates resulted in their being included in two serogroups designated U and Y, respectively, which appear to correspond to the DTL serogroup, and N and P, respectively, corresponding to the ToRS serogroup (Takanami & Tomaru, 1969;Richter, 1983).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Serological and biological variation between and within subgroup I and II strains of cucumber mosaic virus

et al. 1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fourteen strains of cucumber mosaic virus (CMV) from Australia have been characterized by their host range and symptomatology. They were classified as subgroup I or II strains by a dot‐blot molecular hybridization assay between their total viral RNAs and selected cDNAs. The strains FNY and LNy, both from the USA, were used as the subgroup I‐ and subgroup II‐type strains, respectively. A range of serological tests was used to compare these isolates. Gel immunodiffusion tests, with standard antigens homologous to the antisera prepared against glutaraldehyde‐fixed virus of 11 strains, showed that they could be divided into three serogroups on the basis of spur formation in heterologous reactions. Two of the serogroups included either subgroup I or subgroup II isolates, whereas the third serogroup consisted of only one strain (YWA) which was homologous to all the strains tested. Use of heterologous standard antigens in this test failed to show further subgrouping of the antigens. Double‐antibody sandwich (DAS) ELISA using polyclonal antibodies to distinct virus strains also placed the 14 strains in the same three serogroups. When eight different monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) were used in indirect ELISA, one of them distinguished subgroup‐I strains and another distinguished subgroup‐II strains; the YWA strain fell into subgroup II. Other MAbs showed narrower or broader specificity. Thus both molecular hybridization with total RNA and specific MAbs may be useful for separating isolates of CMV into subgroups I and II. Spur formation using heterologous standard antigens to the antisera, as well as being more difficult to interpret, was not a reliable criterion for classification.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Serological and biological variation between and within subgroup I and II strains of cucumber mosaic virus

et al. 1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The stabilizing effect of EDTA on CMV has been explained by a specific ability of EDTA of inhibiting the binding of free divalent cations on the structure of CMV virions (TAKANAMI and TOMARU 1969). Immunoelectrophoresis (QIE) fully proves this interpretation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Use of Quantitative Immunoelectrophoresis in Cucumber Mosaic Virus Assay.

Havránek

1978

J Phytopathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…CMV particles in the infected cells are usually scattered over the cytoplasmic area, and those in a regular arrangement are occasionally found either in the cytoplasm or vacuole. On tbe other hand, it has been generally considered that CMV particles in vitro tend to aggregate, namely, it has been pointed out that the aggregate formed during the purification processes resulted in a loss of the yield (SILL et al 1952, TAKANAMI andTOMARU 1969). Thus, it has been tried to avoid the aggregation during purification procedure (ScoTT 1963, TAKANAMI andTOMARU 1969).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On tbe other hand, it has been generally considered that CMV particles in vitro tend to aggregate, namely, it has been pointed out that the aggregate formed during the purification processes resulted in a loss of the yield (SILL et al 1952, TAKANAMI andTOMARU 1969). Thus, it has been tried to avoid the aggregation during purification procedure (ScoTT 1963, TAKANAMI andTOMARU 1969). On the other hand, CMV particles are precipitated, as is the case with proteins in general or other viruses, by various chemical or physical treatments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%