Herbaceous plant hosts as supermodels for grapevine viruses: a historical perspective

Roy, Brandon G.; Fuchs, Marc

doi:10.1007/s42161-022-01267-z

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 218 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The intensity of PCR products further increased for those ones tested positive in the first round or became visible for those ones did not show positive amplification in the first round of PCR. The RT-qPCR results also confirmed those obtained from nested RT-PCR, which revealed that at 4 mpi and before dormancy treatment, the Cq value was too high (35)(36)(37)(38) The RT-qPCR results also confirmed those obtained from nested RT-PCR, which revealed that at 4 mpi and before dormancy treatment, the Cq value was too high (35)(36)(37)(38) to be confidently called positive. However, after a single dormancy cycle, the Cq value was reduced to 25-30 at 12 mpi, whereas the Cq values of the non-dormancy treatment group collected at the same time point were between 30 and 35.…”

Section: Duration Of Dormancy Atsupporting

confidence: 69%

Optimization of a Protocol for Launching Grapevine Infection with the Biologically Active cDNA Clones of a Virus

Shabanian,

Li,

Ebadi

et al. 2023

Pathogens

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grapevine leafroll disease (GLRD) is the most globally prevalent and destructive disease complex responsible for significant reductions in grape yield and quality as well as wine production. GLRD is associated with several positive-strand RNA viruses of the family Closteroviridae, designated as grapevine leafroll-associated viruses (GLRaVs). However, the specific etiological role of any of these GLRaVs in GLRD has not been demonstrated. Even though GLRaV-3 is considered the chief GLRD agent, little is known about the molecular, cellular, and pathological properties of this virus. Such a knowledge gap is due to multiple factors, including the unavailability of biologically active virus cDNA clones and the lack of reliable experimental systems for launching grapevine infection using such clones. In this work, we tested four methods for inoculating tissue-cultured grapevine plantlets with cDNA clones of GLRaV-3: (i) vacuum agro-infiltration; (ii) agro-pricking; (iii) agro-drenching; and (iv) agro-injection. We showed that vacuum agro-infiltration was the most effective of these methods. Furthermore, we examined the impacts of different experimental conditions on the survival and infectivity rate of grapevines after infiltration. To verify the infectivity rate for different treatments, we used RT-PCR, RT-qPCR, and Western blotting. We found that humidity plays a critical role in the survival of plantlets after agro-infiltration and that the use of RNA silencing suppressor and dormancy treatment both had strong effects on the infection rates. To our knowledge, the experimental protocol reported herein is the most effective system for launching the infection of grapevine using cDNA clones of grapevine viruses featuring up to a 70% infection rate. This system has strong potential to facilitate grapevine virology research including the fulfillment of Koch’s postulates for GLRD and other major virus diseases as well as identifying the molecular, cellular, and pathological properties of GLRaVs and, potentially, other important grapevine viruses.

show abstract

Section: Duration Of Dormancy Atsupporting

confidence: 69%

Optimization of a Protocol for Launching Grapevine Infection with the Biologically Active cDNA Clones of a Virus

Shabanian,

Li,

Ebadi

et al. 2023

Pathogens

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Its genome consists of two RNA molecules, each encoding a polyprotein that is proteolytically cleaved by the RNA1-encoded proteinase 1D Pro into eight mature proteins (Figure A). GFLV can be mechanically transferred to herbaceous hosts such as Nicotiana benthamiana on which distinct symptoms can develop . Host responses and cellular reprogramming that are induced during GFLV infection, particularly for symptom development, remain largely unknown.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, N. benthamiana sustains systemic GFLV infection with different virus strains and mutants that vary in their ability to elicit symptoms. 22,24 For example, GFLV strain GHu induces vein clearing symptoms on apical leaves of N. benthamiana, while strain F13 remains asymptomatic (Figure 1B). 25 A single amino acid in position 802 of GFLV-GHu 1E Pol is critical for manifestation of vein clearing symptoms, which are transient and accompanied by a progressive host recovery within 2 weeks or less without clearing viral infection.…”

Section: ■ Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, N. benthamiana sustains systemic GFLV infection with different virus strains and mutants that vary in their ability to elicit symptoms. , For example, GFLV strain GHu induces vein clearing symptoms on apical leaves of N. benthamiana, while strain F13 remains asymptomatic (Figure B) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…GFLV can be mechanically transferred to herbaceous hosts such as Nicotiana benthamiana on which distinct symptoms can develop. 22 Host responses and cellular reprogramming that are induced during GFLV infection, particularly for symptom development, remain largely unknown. Current hypotheses attribute symptom eliciting responses to the GFLV RNA1-encoded RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP, protein 1E Pol) interacting with host components via protein–protein interactions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Profiling Plant Proteome and Transcriptome Changes during Grapevine Fanleaf Virus Infection

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Viruses can elicit varying types and severities of symptoms during plant host infection. We investigated changes in the proteome and transcriptome of Nicotiana benthamiana plants infected by grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV) with an emphasis on vein clearing symptom development. Comparative, time-course liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry and 3′ ribonucleic acid sequencing analyses of plants infected by two wildtype GFLV strains, one symptomatic and one asymptomatic, and their asymptomatic mutant strains carrying a single amino acid change in the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRP) were conducted to identify host biochemical pathways involved in viral symptom development. During peak vein clearing symptom display at 7 days post-inoculation (dpi), protein and gene ontologies related to immune response, gene regulation, and secondary metabolite production were overrepresented when contrasting wildtype GFLV strain GHu and mutant GHu-1EK802G Pol. Prior to the onset of symptom development at 4 dpi and when symptoms faded away at 12 dpi, protein and gene ontologies related to chitinase activity, hypersensitive response, and transcriptional regulation were identified. This systems biology approach highlighted how a single amino acid of a plant viral RdRP mediates changes to the host proteome (∼1%) and transcriptome (∼8.5%) related to transient vein clearing symptoms and the network of pathways involved in the virus–host arms race.

show abstract

Grapevine viruses: Did you say more than a hundred?

Fuchs

2024

J Plant Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Grapevine virology is well rooted in history, with virus-like symptoms described in the literature as early as the 18th century, and the identification and characterization of viruses associated with viral diseases in the later half of the 20th century. At the dawn of the 21st century and the progressive advent of high-throughput sequencing methodologies followed by their rapid global adoption for virus discovery and annotation of the viral metagenome, the landscape of grapevine virology has rapidly changed. Consequently, the number of novel viruses identified in grapevines (Vitis spp.) has exponentially increased over the past decade and a half. High-throughput sequencing has also been elegantly used for revisiting the existence of a virus that had been allegedly associated with a grapevine disease to only empirically rule it out as a bona fide virus of the grapevine. As a result, the number of grapevine viruses sometimes dwindles, making their timely itemization essential for the community of virologists, as well as growers, extension educators, grapevine nurseries, diagnosticians, service providers, and regulators alike. Here, as of the preparation of this article, 102 viruses have been identified in grapevines worldwide. These viruses are exemplar isolates of species that belong to 44 genera in 21 virus families. The more than a hundred viruses solidifies the ranking of Vitis spp. as the cultivated crop hosting the most viruses.

show abstract

Herbaceous plant hosts as supermodels for grapevine viruses: a historical perspective

Cited by 5 publications

References 218 publications

Optimization of a Protocol for Launching Grapevine Infection with the Biologically Active cDNA Clones of a Virus

Optimization of a Protocol for Launching Grapevine Infection with the Biologically Active cDNA Clones of a Virus

Profiling Plant Proteome and Transcriptome Changes during Grapevine Fanleaf Virus Infection

Grapevine viruses: Did you say more than a hundred?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About