Vietnamese
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Plant Disease 1997-Mar

Partial Characterization of Two Whitefly-Transmitted Geminiviruses Infecting Tomatoes in Venezuela.

Chỉ người dùng đã đăng ký mới có thể dịch các bài báo
Đăng nhập Đăng ký
Liên kết được lưu vào khay nhớ tạm
P Guzman
C Arredondo
D Emmatty
R Portillo
R Gilbertson

Từ khóa

trừu tượng

Whitefly-transmitted geminiviruses can cause significant yield losses on tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) in Venezuela. To identify the geminivirus(es) infecting tomatoes in Venezuela, 20 tomato samples from commercial tomato fields in four states and one weed (Euphorbia heterophylla L.) sample were examined for geminivirus infection. All samples showed symptoms generally associated with geminivirus infection, including golden or yellow mosaic, mottling, crumpling and/or distortion of leaves, and, in some cases, stunted and distorted growth. Through the use of squash blot hybridization analysis and a general probe for Western Hemisphere whitefly-transmitted geminiviruses (4), geminivirus nucleic acids were detected in 19 of 20 tomato samples and the weed sample. No samples were infected with tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV), based on squash blot hybridization analysis with a TYLCV-specific probe. With polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and degenerate primers for whitefly-transmitted geminiviruses (PAL1v1978 and PAR1c496) (4), an approximately 1.2-kb DNA-A fragment was amplified from the 19 squash blot-positive tomato samples and from the weed sample. No DNA fragment was amplified from any samples when TYLCV-specific primers (PTYC1v2406 and PTYIRc287) (3) were used. PCR-amplified DNA-A fragments from four samples representing four different states [Monagas (5L), Guarico (3M), Aragua (3R), and Portuguesa (2U)] were cloned and sequenced. Partial AC1, AV1, and complete common region (CR) sequences of the 5L, 3M, and 2U DNA-A fragments were 92 to 93, 93, and 95 to 97% identical, respectively, indicating that these were DNA-A clones of the same virus. Furthermore, these sequences were 91 to 92, 92 to 95, and 93 to 95% identical, respectively, to sequences of homologous regions of potato yellow mosaic virus (PYMV), indicating that these tomato-infecting geminiviruses are isolates or strains of PYMV. The partial AC1, AV1, and complete CR sequences of the 3R DNA-A fragment were 79, 95, and 77% identical to those of 5L, 3M, and 2U clones, respectively, suggesting that this is a different geminivirus. These sequences were 75 to 87, 82 to 88, and 73 to 81% identical, respectively, to sequences of homologous regions of other tomato geminiviruses, including tomato golden mosaic from Brazil, tomato mottle from Florida, and tomato leaf crumple from Mexico. The bipartite nature of the geminiviruses that were present in the 5L, 3M, 3R, and 2U samples was suggested by the amplification of a DNA-B fragment with degenerate DNA-B primers (PBL1v2040 and PCRc1) (4). These results suggest at least two distinct bipartite Western Hemisphere whitefly-transmitted geminiviruses are associated with tomato virus diseases in Venezuela, and that one of these (sample 3R) may be an undescribed geminivirus. The sequence of the DNA-A fragment from the weed sample was not closely related to the tomato-infecting geminiviruses and, therefore, this weed was not an alternate host of these viruses. Furthermore, because PYMV has been shown to infect tomatoes and cause yellow mosaic symptoms (1), it would be of interest to determine the relationship of PYMV and tomato yellow mosaic geminivirus (ToYMV), which has been reported infecting tomatoes in Venezuela (2), but has not been characterized on the molecular level. References: (1) A. K. Buragohain et al. J. Gen. Virol. 75:2857, 1994. (2) R. C. de Uzcátegui and R. Lastra. Phytopathology 68:985, 1978. (3) M. K. Nakhla et al. Phy-topathol. Mediterr. 32:163, 1993. (4) M. R. Rojas et al. Plant Dis. 77:340, 1993.

Tham gia trang
facebook của chúng tôi

Cơ sở dữ liệu đầy đủ nhất về dược liệu được hỗ trợ bởi khoa học

  • Hoạt động bằng 55 ngôn ngữ
  • Phương pháp chữa bệnh bằng thảo dược được hỗ trợ bởi khoa học
  • Nhận dạng các loại thảo mộc bằng hình ảnh
  • Bản đồ GPS tương tác - gắn thẻ các loại thảo mộc vào vị trí (sắp ra mắt)
  • Đọc các ấn phẩm khoa học liên quan đến tìm kiếm của bạn
  • Tìm kiếm dược liệu theo tác dụng của chúng
  • Sắp xếp sở thích của bạn và cập nhật các nghiên cứu tin tức, thử nghiệm lâm sàng và bằng sáng chế

Nhập một triệu chứng hoặc một căn bệnh và đọc về các loại thảo mộc có thể hữu ích, nhập một loại thảo mộc và xem các bệnh và triệu chứng mà nó được sử dụng để chống lại.
* Tất cả thông tin dựa trên nghiên cứu khoa học đã được công bố

Google Play badgeApp Store badge