Skip to main content
Log in

Host differentiation and serological homology of pea seed-borne mosaic virus isolates

  • Published:
Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Seven isolates of pea seed-borne mosaic virus (PSbMV) were compared on selectedPisum sativum L. differentials and by microprecipitin and SDS-gel serology and particle length. All isolates were characterized by 750 nm particle-length modes and were closely related serologically, but some were readily distinguished onP. sativum differentials. Isolate distinctions were of the magnitude typical for virus strains. Differentials, diversePisum germplasm from U.S. Plant Introduction accessions, provided a practical means of PSbMV strain differentiation.

Samenvatting

Tussen 1966 en 1970 zijn in verschillende landen virussen gerapporteerd, die bij erwt met zaad overgaan, maar in verschillende opzichten leken te verschillen. Isolaten uit Japan en de USA bleken serologisch nauw aan elkaar verwant, zo niet identiek te zijn. Daarom werd de internationale naam ‘pea seed-borne mosaic virus’ voorgesteld. In Nederland was het virus beschreven onder de naam erwterolmozaïekvirus.

Zeven isolaten van het virus uit de USA, Japan, Tsjechoslowakije en Nederland zijn nader met elkaar vergeleken in reactie op geselecteerde differentiërende rassen van erwt (Pisum sativum) en op enkele andere plantessorten, en in serologische eigenschappen zowel als in deeltjeslengte.

Serologisch waren de isolaten niet van elkaar te onderscheiden, wel echter van het verwante bonescherpmozaïekvirus. De voor alle vormen van het laatste virus onvatbare ‘Perfection’-type erwterassen bleken al eerder alle vatbaar te zijn voor het erwterolmozaïekvirus. Ook verschillen de isolaten niet in deeltjeslengte (750 nm).

Bij toetsing in zes verschillende over de wereld verspreide laboratoria bleek de reactie van de differentiërende erwterassen te variëren van een snelle, de hele plant dodende necrose (groep I) tot onvatbaarheid (groep V). Ook tussen de virusisolaten bestonden kleine verschillen in reactie. Het Nederlandse isolaat E224 gedroeg zich opvallend mild. Ook in de, directe vergelijkingsproeven op enkele toetsplantesoorten bleken kleine biologische verschillen te bestaan. De geconstateerde verschillen overschrijden echter niet die tussen stammen van eenzelfde virus. Wellicht gaat het bij het optreden van necrose en van zwakke symptomen om genen die het vatbaarheidsgensbm modificeren.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aapola, A. A., Knesek, J. E. & Mink, G. I., 1974. The influence of inoculation procedure on the host range of pea seed-borne mosaic virus. Phytopathology 64: 1003–1006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bos, L., 1970. The identification of three new viruses isolated formWisteria andPisum in the Netherlands and the problem of variation within the potato virus Y group. Neth. J. Pl. Path. 76: 8–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bos, L., 1975. The application of TMV particles as an internal magnification standard for determining virus particle sizes with the electron microscope. Neth. J. Pl. Path. 81: 168–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drijfhout, E., 1978. Genetic interaction betweenPhaseolus vulgaris and bean common mosaic virus, with implications for strain identification and breeding for resistance. Agric. Res. Rep. (Versl. landbouwk. Onderz.) 892, ISBN 90 220 0671 9, (vii) + 98p., Also, Doctoral thesis, Wageningen.

  • Hagedorn, D. J. & Gritton, E. T., 1973. Inheritance of resistance to the pea seed-borne mosaic virus. Phytopathology 63: 1130–1133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampton, R. O., 1969. Characteristics of virus particles associated with the seed-borne pea fizzletop disease. Phytopathology 59: 1029 (Abstr.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampton, R. O., 1980. Within-line heterogeneity for genesbm in the U.S. Pisum Collection. The Pisum Newsletter 12: 27–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampton, R. O., Knesek, J. E. & Mink, G. I., 1974. Particle-length variability of the pea seed-borne mosaic virus. Phytopathology 64: 1358–1363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampton, R. O., Phillips, S., Knesek, J. E. & Mink, G. I., 1973. Ultrastructural cytology of pea leaves and roots infected by pea seed-borne mosaic virus. Arch. ges. Virusforsch. 42: 242–253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Inouye, T., 1967. A seed-borne mosaic virus of peas. Ann. phytopath. Soc. Japan 33: 38–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, R. T. & Diachun, S., 1977. Serologically and biologically distinct bean yellow mosaic virus strains. Phytopathology 67: 831–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knesek, J. E., Mink, G. I. & Hampton, R. O., 1974. Purification and properties of pea seed-borne mosaic virus. Phytopathology 64: 1076–1080.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCrum, R. C., Studenroth, J. C. & Olszewska, Danuta, 1971. Microslide Ouchterlony technique for serological detection of potato virus X. Phytopathology 61: 290–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miličić, D. & Plavšić, B., 1978. Contribution to the knowledge of pea seed-borne mosaic virus. Acta Bot. Croat. 37: 9–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mink, G. I., Kraft, J., Knesek, J. & Jafri, A., 1969. A seed-borne virus of peas. Phytopathology 59: 1342–1343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mink, G. I., Inouye, T., Hampton, R. O. & Knesek, J. E., 1974. Relationships among isolates of pea seed-borne mosaic virus from the United States and Japan. Phytopathology 64: 569–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musil, M., 1966. Über das Vorkommen des Virus des Blattrollens der Erbse in der Slowakei (Vorläufige Mitteilung). Biológia, Bratisl. 21: 133–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musil, M., 1970. Pea leaf rolling mosaic virus and its properties. Biológia, Bratisl. 25: 379–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purcifull, Dan E. & Batchelor, D. L., 1977. Immunodiffusion tests with sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)-treated plant viruses and plant virus inclusions. Bull. (tech.) agric. Exp. Stn. Inst. Food agric. Sci., Univ. Fla, Gainesville, Fl 32601, 788: 39 pp.

  • Stevenson, R. W. & Hagedorn, D. J., 1969. A new seed-borne virus of peas. Phytopathology 59: 1051–1052 (Abstr.)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Contribution of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, Agricultural Research, in cooperation with the Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University, Corvallis. Technical Paper No. 5192, Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station.

Mention of a trademark of proprietary product does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of the product by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that may also be suitable.

Authors are members of the International Working Group on Legume Viruses.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hampton, R., Mink, G., Bos, L. et al. Host differentiation and serological homology of pea seed-borne mosaic virus isolates. Netherlands Journal of Plant Pathology 87, 1–10 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01981395

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01981395

Additional keywords

Navigation