Plant viruses and new perspectives in cross-protection☆

Valle, Rosaura P.C.; Skrzeczkowski, J.; Morch, Marie-Dominique; Joshi, Rajiv L.; Gargouri, Radhia; Drugeon, Gabrièle; Boyer, Jean-Christophe; Chapeville, F.; Haenni, Anne‐Lise

doi:10.1016/0300-9084(88)90255-6

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…benthamiana inoculated with buffer (mock), HLSV, TMV and HLSV+TMV (cross protected plants pre-inoculated with HLSV 12 days earlier) was performed. Gene expression profiles for each of the 3 individual biological repeats (1–3) after inoculation with buffer (mock), HLSV, TMV and HLSV+TMV are presented in Figure 3A. Mock and HLSV samples were taken at 12 dpi.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Profiling of Genes Related to Cross Protection and Competition for NbTOM1 by HLSV and TMV

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cross protection is the phenomenon through which a mild strain virus suppresses symptoms induced by a closely related severe strain virus in infected plants. Hibiscus latent Singapore virus (HLSV) and Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) are species within the genus tobamovirus. HLSV can protect Nicotiana benthamiana against TMV-U1 strain, resulting in mild symptoms instead of severe systemic necrosis. The mechanism of cross protection between HLSV and TMV is unknown. In the past, some researchers suggest that the protecting virus strain might occupy virus-specific replication sites within a cell leaving no room for the challenge virus. Quantitative real-time RT-PCR was performed to detect viral RNA levels during cross protection. HLSV accumulation increased in cross protected plants compared with that of single HLSV infected plants, while TMV decreased in cross protected plants. This suggests that there is a competition for host factors between HLSV and TMV for replication. To investigate the mechanism under the cross protection between HLSV and TMV, microarray analysis was conducted to examine the transcriptional levels of global host genes during cross protection, using Tobacco Gene Expression Microarray, 4x44 k slides. The transcriptional level of some host genes corresponded to accumulation level of TMV. Some host genes were up-regulated only by HLSV. Tobamovirus multiplication gene 1 (TOM1), essential for tobamovirus multiplication, was involved in competition for replication by HLSV and TMV during cross protection. Both HLSV and TMV accumulation decreased when NbTOM1 was silenced. A large quantity of HLSV resulted in decreased TMV accumulation in HLSV+TMV (100:1) co-infection. These results indicate that host genes involved in the plant defense response and virus multiplication are up-regulated by challenge virus TMV but not by protecting virus HLSV during cross protection.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Profiling of Genes Related to Cross Protection and Competition for NbTOM1 by HLSV and TMV

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cross-protection is recognized as an induced resistance developed in plants against virus infection (Valle et al 1988). Cross-protection has been reported in a range of virus-host systems and can be used in biological control (Fulton 1986).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interaction between two strains ofSoybean mosaic virusin soybean

Shi

Chen

Gergerich

et al. 2008

Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interactions between two Soybean mosaic virus (SMV) strains, G1 and G7, were studied in nine soybean genotypes (Glycine max) using mixed or sequential inoculations. Six combinations of reactions to the two strains were observed when plants were inoculated with G1 or G7 individually: SS ('Essex', susceptible to both strains), RS ('York', 'Prolina', and 'Dillon', resistant to G1 and susceptible to G7), SR (L29 and CNS, susceptible to G1 and resistant to G7), RN (PI 96983, resistant to G1 and necrotic to G7), NR (PI 61944, necrotic to G1 and resistant to G7), and RR (V94-5152, resistant to both strains). When inoculated with mixed inoculum of G1 and G7, soybean genotypes of SS, RS, or SR reaction type exhibited susceptible (mosaic) symptoms; genotypes of RN and NR showed necrotic reaction (stem-tip necrosis); and the genotype of RR remained healthy (symptomless). Testing with straindifferentiating soybean genotypes confirmed the presence of both G1 and G7 strains in SS plants, only the mosaicinducing strain G7 in RS or G1 in SR plants, and only the necrosis-inducing strain G7 in RN or G1 in NR plants. No virus was detected in RR plants. These results indicated that two mosaic-inducing strains could coexist in the same plant but that a mosaic-or necrotic-inducing strain was dominant over the avirulent strain. When inoculated sequentially with two mosaic strains, only the first strain was detected in the SS genotype, indicating cross-protection. Cross-protection was not observed with sequential inoculation of RS, SR, RN, or NR genotypes. Résumé : Les interactions entre deux souches du virus de la mosaïque du soja (VMS), G1 et G7, ont été étudiées chez neuf génotypes de soja (Glycine max), à l'aide d'inoculations mixtes ou séquentielles. Six combinaisons de réactions aux deux souches ont été observées lorsque les plants ont été inoculés individuellement avec G1 ou G7 : SS ('Essex', réceptif aux deux souches), RS ('York', 'Prolina' et 'Dillon', réfractaires à G1 et réceptifs à G7), SR (L29 et CNS, réceptifs à G1 et réfractaires à G7), RN (PI 96983, réfractaire à G1 et réaction nécrotique à G7), NR (PI 61944, réaction nécrotique à G1 et réfractaire à G7) et RR (V94-5152, réfractaire aux deux souches). Après avoir été inoculés avec un inoculum mixe de G1 et G7, les génotypes de soja de réactions SS, RS et SR affichaient des symptômes de réceptivité à la mosaïque. Chez les génotypes de réactions RN et NR, la réaction a été nécrotique (nécrose de l'extrémité des tiges). Quant aux génotypes de réaction RR, ils n'ont pas été infectés (aucun symptôme). Des essais effectués avec des génotypes du soja permettant la différenciation des souches ont confirmé la présence des souches G1 et G7 chez les plants du type SS, seulement celle de la souche G7 ou G1 provoquant la mosaïque chez les plants de types RS et SR, respectivement, et seulement la présence de la souche G7 ou G1 provoquant la nécrose chez les plants de types RN et NR, respectivement. Aucun virus n'a été détecté chez les plants du type RR. Ces résultats ont démontré que ...

show abstract

“…The recovery was thereafter shown to be naturally elicited by some plant viruses infecting non transgenic wild type plants [ 10 , 11 ]. RNA silencing also helped explaining the phenomenon of "cross-protection" whereby attenuated strains of a given virus are used to immunise plants against aggressive strains of the same virus [ 12 ]. This is exemplified with plants infected with a recombinant Potatoe Virus X (PVX) carrying a GFP insert that become resistant to Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) infection carrying the same insert [ 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anti-viral RNA silencing: do we look like plants ?

Saumet

Lecellier

2006

Retrovirology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The anti-viral function of RNA silencing was first discovered in plants as a natural manifestation of the artificial 'co-suppression', which refers to the extinction of endogenous gene induced by homologous transgene. Because silencing components are conserved among most, if not all, eukaryotes, the question rapidly arose as to determine whether this process fulfils anti-viral functions in animals, such as insects and mammals. It appears that, whereas the anti-viral process seems to be similarly conserved from plants to insects, even in worms, RNA silencing does influence the replication of mammalian viruses but in a particular mode: micro(mi)RNAs, endogenous small RNAs naturally implicated in translational control, rather than virus-derived small interfering (si)RNAs like in other organisms, are involved. In fact, these recent studies even suggest that RNA silencing may be beneficial for viral replication. Accordingly, several large DNA mammalian viruses have been shown to encode their own miRNAs. Here, we summarize the seminal studies that have implicated RNA silencing in viral infection and compare the different eukaryotic responses.

show abstract

Plant viruses and new perspectives in cross-protection☆

Cited by 12 publications

References 30 publications

Profiling of Genes Related to Cross Protection and Competition for NbTOM1 by HLSV and TMV

Profiling of Genes Related to Cross Protection and Competition for NbTOM1 by HLSV and TMV

Interaction between two strains ofSoybean mosaic virusin soybean

Anti-viral RNA silencing: do we look like plants ?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About