4.7 Article

Effect of sugar beet genotype on the Beet necrotic yellow vein virusP25 pathogenicity factor and evidence for a fitness penalty in resistance-breaking strains

期刊

MOLECULAR PLANT PATHOLOGY
卷 14, 期 4, 页码 356-364

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mpp.12012

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry for Science and Culture of Lower Saxony, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Beet necrotic yellow vein virus (BNYVV), vectored by Polymyxa betae, causes rhizomania in sugar beet. For disease control, the cultivation of hybrids carrying Rz1 resistance is crucial, but is compromised by resistance-breaking (RB) strains with specific mutations in the P25 protein at amino acids 6770 (tetrad). To obtain evidence for P25 variability from soil-borne populations, where the virus persists for decades, populations with wild-type (WT) and RB properties were analysed by P25 deep sequencing. The level of P25 variation in the populations analysed did not correlate with RB properties. Remarkably, one WT population contained P25 with RB mutations at a frequency of 11%. To demonstrate selection by Rz1 and the influence of RB mutations on relative fitness, competition experiments between strains were performed. Following a mixture of strains with four RNAs, a shift in tetrad variants was observed, suggesting that strains did not mix or transreplicate. The plant genotype exerted a clear influence on the frequency of RB tetrads. In Rz1 plants, the RB variants outcompeted the WT variants, and mostly vice versa in susceptible plants, demonstrating a relative fitness penalty of RB mutations. The strong genotype effect supports the hypothesized Rz1RB strain selection with four RNAs, suggesting that a certain tetrad needs to become dominant in a population to influence its properties. Tetrad selection was not observed when an RB strain, with an additional P26 protein encoded by a fifth RNA, competed with a WT strain, supporting its role as a second BNYVV pathogenicity factor and suggesting the reassortment of both types.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据