Advertisement

Archives of Virology

, Volume 164, Issue 4, pp 1005–1013 | Cite as

Assessment of resistance to rice tungro disease in popular rice varieties in India by introgression of a transgene against Rice tungro bacilliform virus

  • G. Kumar
  • M. Jyothsna
  • P. Valarmathi
  • S. Roy
  • A. Banerjee
  • J. Tarafdar
  • B. K. Senapati
  • S. Robin
  • S. Manonmani
  • R. Rabindran
  • I. DasguptaEmail author
Original Article
  • 128 Downloads

Abstract

Rice crops in South and Southeast Asian countries suffer critical yield losses due to rice tungro disease caused by joint infection with rice tungro bacilliform virus (RTBV) and rice tungro spherical virus (RTSV). Previously, for generating RNA interference-based transgenic resistance against tungro viruses, RTBV ORF IV was used as a transgene to develop RTBV resistance in a popular high-yielding scented rice variety. The transgene from this line was then introgressed into five popular high-yielding but tungro-susceptible rice varieties by marker-assisted backcross breeding with a view to combine the resistant trait with the agronomic traits. The present work includes a resistance assay of the BC3F5 lines of these varieties under glasshouse conditions. Out of a total of 28 lines tested, each consisting of 12 individual plants, eight lines showed significant amelioration in height reduction and 100- to 1000-fold reduction in RTBV titers. The RNAi-mediated resistance was clearly manifested by the presence of virus-derived small RNA (vsRNA) specific for RTBV ORF IV in the transgenic backcrossed lines.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by Department of Biotechnology, Government of India (Grant No. BT/PR-15033/AGR/02/773/2011). GK is indebted to University Grants Commission, New Delhi, for research fellowships during this work. Funds received from R&D Grant of University of Delhi, DST-PURSE Grant, and the departmental infrastructure grant from DST-FIST are also gratefully acknowledged.

Compliance with ethical standards

This work was performed keeping in mind all applicable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

There exists no conflict of interest among the authors pertaining to this work.

Supplementary material

705_2019_4159_MOESM1_ESM.tif (160 kb)
Suppl. Figure S1 Schematic representation of the orientation of forward and reverse primers in the two strategies (a and b) used for validation of pRTBV-Inf infection efficiency
705_2019_4159_MOESM2_ESM.tif (51 kb)
Suppl. Figure S2 Confirmation of RTBV in rice plants upon agroinoculation. M, marker; lane 1, negative control; lanes 2 to 13, 12 plants selected for PCR; lane 14, RTBV-positive genomic DNA (1/10th dilution); lane 15, positive control (pRTBV-Inf plasmid)
705_2019_4159_MOESM3_ESM.tif (101 kb)
Suppl. Figure S3 Validation of infection efficiency of the pRTBV-Inf agroinfectious clone. (a) With primer ISEPCIRCU FP/RP: lanes 1-6 and 9-14, plant samples; lane 7, negative control; lane 8, pRTBV-Inf plasmid. (b) With primer IINSVEC FP/RP: lane 1, negative control; lanes 2-13, plant samples; lane 14, positive control (pRTBV-Inf plasmid)
705_2019_4159_MOESM4_ESM.tif (193 kb)
Suppl. Figure S4 Comparison of virus titer of the test TN1 plants at two time points
705_2019_4159_MOESM5_ESM.tif (131 kb)
Suppl. Figure S5 Confirmation of RTBV (amplified as approximately 1-kb bands) in ASD 16 parent and backcrossed lines along with susceptible TN1 and resistant Utri Merah variety. –ve is the mock-inoculated DNA, while +ve is the 1/10th-diluted plasmid. ‘M’ corresponds to the 1-kb DNA marker
705_2019_4159_MOESM6_ESM.tif (173 kb)
Suppl. Figure S6 Confirmation of RTBV (amplified as approximately 1-kb bands) in BPT 5204 parent and backcrossed lines. –ve is the mock-inoculated DNA, while +ve is the 1/10th-diluted plasmid. ‘M’ corresponds to the 1-kb DNA marker
705_2019_4159_MOESM7_ESM.tif (293 kb)
Suppl. Figure S7 Confirmation of RTBV (amplified as approximately 1-kb bands) in CR 1009 parent and backcrossed lines. –ve is the mock-inoculated DNA, while +ve is the 1/10th-diluted plasmid. ‘M’ corresponds to the 1-kb DNA marker
705_2019_4159_MOESM8_ESM.tif (91 kb)
Suppl. Figure S8 Confirmation of RTBV (amplified as approximately 1-kb bands) in Shatabdi and Khitish parent and backcrossed lines. –ve is the mock-inoculated DNA, while +ve is the 1/10th-diluted plasmid. ‘M’ corresponds to the 1-kb DNA marker
705_2019_4159_MOESM9_ESM.tif (84 kb)
Suppl. Figure S9 Standard curve for estimation of RTBV titers
705_2019_4159_MOESM10_ESM.pdf (8.4 mb)
Supplementary material 10 (PDF 8641 kb)
705_2019_4159_MOESM11_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 11 (DOCX 13 kb)
705_2019_4159_MOESM12_ESM.docx (12 kb)
Supplementary material 12 (DOCX 12 kb)
705_2019_4159_MOESM13_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 13 (DOCX 14 kb)
705_2019_4159_MOESM14_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 14 (DOCX 12 kb)
705_2019_4159_MOESM15_ESM.docx (88 kb)
Supplementary material 15 (DOCX 87 kb)
705_2019_4159_MOESM16_ESM.docx (67 kb)
Supplementary material 16 (DOCX 67 kb)
705_2019_4159_MOESM17_ESM.docx (104 kb)
Supplementary material 17 (DOCX 103 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Nagadhara D, Ramesh S, Pasalu IC et al (2003) Transgenic indica rice resistant to sap-sucking insects. Plant Biotechnol J 1:231–240.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-7652.2003.00022.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hibino H, Roechan M, Sudarisman S (1978) Association of two types of virus particles with penyakit habang (tungro disease) of rice in Indonesia. Phytopathology 68:1412–1416.  https://doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-68-1412 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jones MC, Gough K, Dasgupta I et al (1991) Rice tungro disease is caused by an RNA and a DNA virus. J Gen Virol 72:757–761.  https://doi.org/10.1099/0022-1317-72-4-757 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hay JM, Jones MC, Blakebrough ML et al (1991) An analysis of the sequence of an infectious clone of rice tungro bacilliform virus, a plant pararetrovirus. Nucleic Acids Res 19:2615–2621.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/19.10.2615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shen P, Kaniewska M, Smith C, Beachy RN (1993) Nucleotide sequence and genomic organization of rice tungro spherical virus. Virology 193:621–630.  https://doi.org/10.1006/viro.1993.1170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Qu R, Bhattacharyya M, Laco GS et al (1991) Characterization of the genome of rice tungro bacilliform virus: comparison with Commelina yellow mottle virus and caulimoviruses. Virology 185:354–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kano H, Koizumi M, Noda H et al (1992) Nucleotide sequence of capsid protein gene of rice tungro bacilliform virus. Arch Virol 124:157–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Laco GS, Beachy RN (1994) Rice tungro bacilliform virus encodes reverse transcriptase, DNA polymerase, and ribonuclease H activities. Proc Natl Acad Sci 91:2654–2658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hull R (1996) Molecular biology of rice tungro viruses. Annu Rev Phytopathol 34:275–297.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto.34.1.275 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leclerc D, Burri L, Kajava AV et al (1998) The open reading frame III product of cauliflower mosaic virus forms a tetramer through a N-terminal coiled-coil. J Biol Chem 273:29015–29021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marmey P, Bothner B, Jacquot E et al (1999) Rice tungro bacilliform virus open reading frame 3 encodes a single 37-kDa coat protein. Virology 253:319–326.  https://doi.org/10.1006/viro.1998.9519 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Herzog E, Guerra-Peraza O, Hohn T (2000) The rice tungro bacilliform virus gene II product interacts with the coat protein domain of the viral gene III polyprotein. J Virol 74:2073–2083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rajeswaran R, Golyaev V, Seguin J, Zvereva AS, Farinelli L, Pooggin MM (2014) Interactions of rice tungro bacilliform pararetrovirus and its protein P4 with plant RNA-silencing machinery. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 27(12):1370–1378.  https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-07-14-0201-R CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rivera CT, Ou SH (1967) Transmission studies of the two strains of rice tungro virus. Plant Dis Rep 51:877–881Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cabauatan PQ, Hibino H (1985). Transmission of rice tungro bacilliform and spherical viruses by Nephotettix virescens Distant. Philippine Phytopathology (Philippines) v. 21.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dasgupta I, Hull R, Eastop S et al (1991) Rice tungro bacilliform virus DNA independently infects rice after Agrobacterium-mediated transfer. J Gen Virol 72:1215–1221.  https://doi.org/10.1099/0022-1317-72-6-1215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Khush GS, Virmani SS (1985) Breeding rice for disease resistance. Prog plant Breed 1:239–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Azzam O (2002) The biology, epidemiology, and management of rice tungro disease in Asia. Plant Dis 86:88–100.  https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS.2002.86.2.88 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mew TW, Leung H, Savary S et al (2004) Looking ahead in rice disease research and management. CRC Crit Rev Plant Sci 23:103–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Waterhouse PM, Graham MW, Wang M-B (1998) Virus resistance and gene silencing in plants can be induced by simultaneous expression of sense and antisense RNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci 95:13959–13964.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.95.23.13959 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pooggin M, Shivaprasad PV, Veluthambi K, Hohn T (2003) RNAi targeting of DNA virus in plants. Nat Biotechnol 21:131–132.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0203-131b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lennefors B-L, Savenkov EI, Bensefelt J et al (2006) dsRNA-mediated resistance to Beet Necrotic Yellow Vein Virus infections in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L. ssp. vulgaris). Mol Breed 18:313–325.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-006-9030-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bonfim K, Faria JC, Nogueira EO et al (2007) RNAi-mediated resistance to Bean golden mosaic virus in genetically engineered common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Mol Plant Microbe Interact 20:717–726.  https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-20-6-0717 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tyagi H, Rajasubramaniam S, Rajam MV, Dasgupta I (2008) RNA-interference in rice against Rice tungro bacilliform virus results in its decreased accumulation in inoculated rice plants. Transgen Res 17:897–904.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-008-9174-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Song GQ, Sink KC, Walworth AE et al (2013) Engineering cherry rootstocks with resistance to Prunus necrotic ring spot virus through RNAi-mediated silencing. Plant Biotechnol J 11:702–708.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Singh A, Taneja J, Dasgupta I, Mukherjee SK (2015) Development of plants resistant to tomato geminiviruses using artificial trans-acting small interfering RNA. Mol Plant Pathol 16:724–734.  https://doi.org/10.1111/mpp.12229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hameed A, Tahir MN, Asad S et al (2017) RNAi-Mediated Simultaneous Resistance Against Three RNA Viruses in Potato. Mol Biotechnol 59:73–83.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12033-017-9995-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ghildiyal M, Zamore PD (2009) Small silencing RNAs: an expanding universe. Nat Rev Genet 10:94–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Joshua-Tor L, Hannon GJ (2011) Ancestral roles of small RNAs: an Ago-centric perspective. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 3:a003772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rajeswaran R, Pooggin MM (2012) Role of virus-derived small RNAs in plant antiviral defense: insights from DNA viruses. In: Sunkar R (ed) MicroRNAs in plant development and stress response. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, pp 261–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hamilton AJ (1999) A species of small antisense RNA in posttranscriptional gene silencing in plants. Science 80(286):950–952.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5441.950 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Roy S, Banerjee A, Tarafdar J et al (2012) Transfer of transgenes for resistance to rice tungro disease into high-yielding rice cultivars through gene-based marker-assisted selection. J Agric Sci 150:610–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Roy S, Banerjee A, Tarafdar J, Senapati BK (2012) Detection of probable marker-free transgene-positive rice plants resistant to rice tungro disease from backcross progenies of transgenic Pusa Basmati 1. J Genet 91:213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jyothsna M, Manonmani S, Rabindran R et al (2013) Introgression of transgenic resistance for rice tungro disease into mega variety, ASD 16 of Tamil Nadu through marker assisted backcross breeding. Madras Agric J 100:70–74Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Valarmathi P, Kumar G, Robin S et al (2016) Evaluation of virus resistance and agronomic performance of rice cultivar ASD 16 after transfer of transgene against Rice tungro bacilliform virus by backcross breeding. Virus Genes 52:521–529.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11262-016-1318-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bio assays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 15:473–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yoshida S (1976) Routine procedure for growing rice plants in culture solution. In: Yoshida S, Forno DA, Cock JH (eds) Laboratory manual for physiological studies of rice. International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, pp 61–66Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Purkayastha A, Mathur S, Verma V et al (2010) Virus-induced gene silencing in rice using a vector derived from a DNA virus. Planta 232:1531–1540.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-010-1273-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sharma S, Dasgupta I (2012) Development of SYBR Green I based real-time PCR assays for quantitative detection of Rice tungro bacilliform virus and Rice tungro spherical virus. J Virol Methods 181:86–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jviromet.2012.01.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sambrook J, Russell DW (2001) Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual, vol 1, pp 5.4–5.13Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Maclachlan S, Zalik S (1963) Plastid structure, chlorophyll concentration, and free amino acid composition of a chlorophyll mutant of barley. Can J Bot 41:1053–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Katiyar-Agarwal S, Gao S, Vivian-Smith A, Jin H (2007) A novel class of bacteria-induced small RNAs in Arabidopsis. Genes Dev 21:3123–3134.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1595107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Csorba T, Kontra L, Burgyán J (2015) Viral silencing suppressors: tools forged to fine-tune host-pathogen coexistence. Virology 479–480:85–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Fütterer J, Potrykus I, Brau MPV et al (1994) Splicing in a Plant Pararetrovirus. Virology.  https://doi.org/10.1006/viro.1994.1078 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant Molecular BiologyUniversity of Delhi South CampusNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.Department of RiceTamil Nadu Agricultural UniversityCoimbatoreIndia
  3. 3.Department of Plant PathologyTamil Nadu Agricultural UniversityCoimbatoreIndia
  4. 4.Department of Plant BreedingBidhan Chandra Krishi ViswavidyalayaKalyaniIndia
  5. 5.Department of Plant PathologyBidhan Chandra Krishi ViswavidyalayaKalyaniIndia

Personalised recommendations