The Effects of Viruses and Viral Diseases on Grapes and Wine

Mannini, F.; Digiaro, M.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-57706-7_23

Cited by 42 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Viruses and the diseases they cause present a major roadblock to the sustainable production of quality grapes and wines [ 1 ]. Infections with individual viruses, and mixed infections with multiple viruses as is commonly seen in grapes, are responsible for considerable and perpetual economic losses to grape and wine industries worldwide [ 2 – 6 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survey for major viruses in commercial Vitis vinifera wine grapes in Ontario

Xiao

Shabanian

Moore

et al. 2018

Virol J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn recent years, the Ontario grape and wine industry has experienced outbreaks of viral diseases across the province. Little is known about the prevalence of viruses and viral diseases in Ontario. Since 2015, we have conducted large-scale surveys for major viruses in commercial wine grapes in order to obtain a comprehensive understanding of the prevalence and severity of viral diseases in Ontario.MethodsA total of 657 composite leaf samples representing 3285 vines collected from 137 vine blocks of 33 vineyards from three appellations: Niagara Peninsula, Lake Erie North Shore and Prince Edward County. These samples covered six major red cultivars and five major white grape cultivars. Using a multiplex RT-PCR format, we tested these samples for 17 viruses including those involved in all major viral diseases of the grapevine, such as five grapevine leafroll-associated viruses (GLRaV-1, 2, 3, 4, 7), grapevine red blotch virus (GRBV), grapevine Pinot gris virus (GPGV), grapevine rupestris stem sitting-associated virus (GRSPaV), grapevine virus A (GVA), grapevine virus B (GVB), grapevine fleck virus (GFkV), arabis mosaic virus (ArMV), tomato ringspot virus (ToRSV), trapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV), among others.ResultsFourteen of the 17 viruses were detected from these samples and the predominant viruses are GRSPaV, GLRaV-3, GFkV, GPGV and GRBaV with an incidence of 84.0, 47.9, 21.8, 21.6 and 18.3%, respectively. As expected, mixed infections with multiple viruses are common. 95.6% of the samples included in the survey were infected with at least one virus; 67% of the samples with 2–4 viruses and 4.7% of the samples with 5–6 viruses. The major grape cultivars all tested positive for these major viruses. The results also suggested that the use of infected planting material may have been one of the chief factors responsible for the recent outbreaks of viral diseases across the province.ConclusionsThis is the first such comprehensive survey for grapevine viruses in Ontario and one of the most extensive surveys ever conducted in Canada. The recent outbreaks of viral diseases in Ontario vineyards were likely caused by GLRaV-3, GRBV and GPGV. Findings from this survey provides a baseline for the grape and wine industry in developing strategies for managing grapevine viral diseases in Ontario vineyards.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survey for major viruses in commercial Vitis vinifera wine grapes in Ontario

Xiao

Shabanian

Moore

et al. 2018

Virol J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…is a model plant to study plant–virus interactions in woody species in both controlled and field conditions (Perrone et al., ). Grapevine represents one of the most economically important fruit crops in the world with very ancient origins and potentially infected by many viral entities (Mannini and Digiaro, ; Martelli, ). As mentioned previously, several studies have been conducted on pathogenic viruses invading grapevines; nevertheless, in some environmental conditions and in specific grapevine genotype–virus strain combinations, some of these are harmless to the plant.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dissecting interplays between Vitis vinifera L. and grapevine virus B (GVB) under field conditions

Chitarra

Cuozzo

Ferrandino

et al. 2018

Molecular Plant Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant virus infections are often difficult to characterize as they result from a complex molecular and physiological interplay between a pathogen and its host. In this study, the impact of the phloem-limited grapevine virus B (GVB) on the Vitis vinifera L. wine-red cultivar Albarossa was analysed under field conditions. Trials were carried out over two growing seasons by combining agronomic, molecular, biochemical and ecophysiological approaches. The data showed that GVB did not induce macroscopic symptoms on 'Albarossa', but affected the ecophysiological performances of vines in terms of assimilation rates, particularly at the end of the season, without compromising yield and vigour. In GVB-infected plants, the accumulation of soluble carbohydrates in the leaves and transcriptional changes in sugar- and photosynthetic-related genes seemed to trigger defence responses similar to those observed in plants infected by phytoplasmas, although to a lesser extent. In addition, GVB activated berry secondary metabolism. In particular, total anthocyanins and their acetylated forms accumulated at higher levels in GVB-infected than in GVB-free berries, consistent with the expression profiles of the related biosynthetic genes. These results contribute to improve our understanding of the multifaceted grapevine-virus interaction.

show abstract

“…In P. domestica virus infection causes leaf deformation, such as strap-shaped to dwarf-thickened leaves; in P. salicina x P. simonii symptoms are small leaves and shoot rosette (Martelli and Uyemoto, 2011). Berry taste is also affected (Mannini and Digiaro, 2017) Symptoms on Vaccinium corymbosum are mainly on the leaves, which are strap-like (Ramsdell and Gillet, 1998) Yes Concord.…”

Section: Peach Rosette Mosaic Virus (Prmv)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Concord. Berry taste is also affected (Mannini and Digiaro, 2017) Symptoms on Vaccinium corymbosum are mainly on the leaves, which are strap-like (Ramsdell and Gillet, 1998)…”

Section: Peach Rosette Mosaic Virus (Prmv)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pest categorisation of non‐EU viruses and viroids of Prunus L.

Bragard¹,

Dehnen‐Schmutz²,

Gonthier³

et al. 2019

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following a request from the EU Commission, the Panel on Plant Health addressed the pest categorisation of the viruses and viroids of Prunus L. determined as being either non-EU or of undetermined standing in a previous EFSA opinion. These infectious agents belong to different genera and are heterogeneous in their biology. With the exclusion of Ilarvirus S1 and Ilarvirus S2, for which very limited information exists, the pest categorisation was completed for 26 viruses and 1 viroid having acknowledged identities and available detection methods. All these viruses are efficiently transmitted by vegetative plant propagation techniques, with plants for planting representing the major pathway for long-distance dispersal and thus considered as the major pathway for entry. Depending on the virus, additional pathway(s) can also be Prunus seeds, pollen and/or vector(s). Most of the viruses categorised here are known to infect only one or few plant genera, but some of them have a wide host range, thus extending the possible entry pathways. Apple scar skin viroid, American plum line pattern virus, cherry mottle leaf virus, cherry rasp leaf virus, cherry rosette virus, cherry rusty mottle-associated virus, cherry twisted leaf-associated virus, peach enation virus, peach mosaic virus, peach rosette mosaic virus, tobacco ringspot virus and tomato ringspot virus meet all the criteria evaluated by EFSA to qualify as potential Union quarantine pests (QPs). With the exception of impact in the EU territory, on which the Panel was unable to conclude, apricot vein clearing virus, Asian prunus virus 1, Asian prunus virus 2, Asian prunus virus 3, Caucasus prunus virus, cherry virus B, Mume virus A, nectarine stem pitting-associated virus, nectarine virus M, peach chlorotic mottle virus, peach leaf pitting-associated virus, peach virus D, prunus virus F and prunus virus T satisfy all the other criteria to be considered as potential Union QPs. Prunus geminivirus A does not meet the criterion of having negative impact in the EU. For several viruses, especially those recently discovered, the categorisation is associated with high uncertainties mainly because of the absence of data on their biology, distribution and impact. Since this opinion addresses specifically the non-EU viruses, in general these viruses do not meet the criteria assessed by EFSA to qualify as potential Union regulated non-quarantine pests.

show abstract

The Effects of Viruses and Viral Diseases on Grapes and Wine

Cited by 42 publications

References 58 publications

Survey for major viruses in commercial Vitis vinifera wine grapes in Ontario

Survey for major viruses in commercial Vitis vinifera wine grapes in Ontario

Dissecting interplays between Vitis vinifera L. and grapevine virus B (GVB) under field conditions

Pest categorisation of non‐EU viruses and viroids of Prunus L.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About