Open AccessCross-Protection as Control Strategy AgainstGrapevine fanleaf virusin Naturally Infected Vineyards
Author(s) -
Véronique Komar,
Emmanuelle Vigne,
Gérard Demangeat,
Olivier Lemaire,
Marc Fuchs
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
plant disease
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.663
H-Index - 108
eISSN - 1943-7692
pISSN - 0191-2917
DOI - 10.1094/pdis-92-12-1689
Subject(s) - biology , nepovirus , vineyard , virology , rootstock , horticulture , virus , plant virus , veterinary medicine , medicine
The efficacy of cross-protection at mitigating the impact of Grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV) on grapevines (Vitis vinifera) was assessed in two naturally infected vineyard sites. Test vines consisted of scions grafted onto rootstocks that were healthy or infected by mild protective strains GFLV-GHu or Arabis mosaic virus (ArMV)-Ta. Challenge GFLV infection via the nematode Xiphinema index was monitored over nine consecutive years in control and ArMV-Ta cross-protected vines by double-antibody sandwich–enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay using GFLV-specific antibodies, and in GFLV-GHu cross-protected vines by characterizing the coat protein gene of superinfecting isolates by immunocapture–reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction–restriction fragment length polymorphism. Results were consistent with a significantly reduced challenge infection rate in cross-protected vines compared with control vines, more so in those protected with GFLV-GHu (19 versus 90%) than with ArMV-Ta (40 versus 65% in field A and 63 versus 90% in field B). However, the two mild strains significantly reduced fruit yield by 9% (ArMV-Ta) and 17% (GFLV-GHu) over 8 years and had a limited effect on fruit quality. Therefore, in spite of a great potential at reducing the incidence of challenge field isolates, cross-protection with natural mild protective strains GFLV-GHu and ArMV-Ta is not attractive to control GFLV because the negative impact on yield is a limiting factor for its deployment.