4.6 Article

Detection of Multiple Variants of Grapevine Fanleaf Virus in Single Xiphinema index Nematodes

期刊

VIRUSES-BASEL
卷 11, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/v11121139

关键词

GFLV; variants; Vitis vinifera; Xiphinema index; acquisition; High Throughput Sequencing (HTS); detection; Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP); genetic diversity; bottleneck

类别

资金

  1. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)
  2. project VACCIVINE - 'Plan National Deperissement du vignoble' (French Ministry of Agriculture, FranceAgrimer and CNIV)
  3. MoetChandon
  4. Comite Champagne
  5. Bureau Interprofessionnel des Vins de Bourgogne
  6. Comite Interprofessionnel des Vins d'Alsace

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV) is responsible for a widespread disease in vineyards worldwide. Its genome is composed of two single-stranded positive-sense RNAs, which both show a high genetic diversity. The virus is transmitted from grapevine to grapevine by the ectoparasitic nematode Xiphinema index. Grapevines in diseased vineyards are often infected by multiple genetic variants of GFLV but no information is available on the molecular composition of virus variants retained in X. index following nematodes feeding on roots. In this work, aviruliferous X. index were fed on three naturally GFLV-infected grapevines for which the virome was characterized by RNAseq. Six RNA-1 and four RNA-2 molecules were assembled segregating into four and three distinct phylogenetic clades of RNA-1 and RNA-2, respectively. After 19 months of rearing, single and pools of 30 X. index tested positive for GFLV. Additionally, either pooled or single X. index carried multiple variants of the two GFLV genomic RNAs. However, the full viral genetic diversity found in the leaves of infected grapevines was not detected in viruliferous nematodes, indicating a genetic bottleneck. Our results provide new insights into the complexity of GFLV populations and the putative role of X. index as reservoirs of virus diversity.

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

4.6
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