American Potato Journal

, Volume 67, Issue 9, pp 589–602 | Cite as

Use of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect potato leafroll virus in field grown potato, cv. Russet Burbank

  • Kathy L. Flanders
  • David W. Ragsdale
  • Edward B. Radcliffe


Use of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) in detecting potato leafroll infections in field grown potato, cv. Russet Burbank, was studied from 1986 to 1988 at Rosemount, Minnesota. The objective was to determine relative reliability of current season foliage ELISA, tuber tissue ELISA, and tuber progeny foliage ELISA. Serological tests were most accurate when foliage of tuber progenies was tested. ELISA underestimated total leafroll infection when current season foliage from the inoculated plant was used, in those plants inoculated during late tuber bulking stage. Current season foliage ELISA tests using newly expanded terminal leaflets were more reliable than were tests using older leaflets. Leafroll infection was detected in the current season foliage and tuber progenies (tuber tissue as well as tuber progeny foliage) of some plants seven days after inoculation. Most current season foliage infections were detected by day 14–28 depending on year. Differences among years were most likely caused by variation in quality of virus source plants and numbers of vectors used in inoculation. ELISA tests on tuber tissue were almost as effective as ELISA tests on tuber progeny foliage in detecting potato leafroll 20 days after inoculation, but ELISA on tuber tissue substantially underestimated infection if plants were sampled earlier. Maximum percent tuber infection occurred 20 days or more after inoculation. Movement of the virus from the inoculated stem to other stems decreased with increased plant age at inoculation. Percent infected tubers declined with increased plant age at inoculation. Action thresholds developed for aphids in managing potato leafroll virus should take into account the temporal change in percent infected tubers.

Additional Key Words

PLRV ELISA M. persicae 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Barker, H. 1987. Multiple components of the resistance of potatoes to potato leafroll virus. Ann Appl Biol 111:641–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barker, H. and B.D. Harrison. 1985. Restricted multiplication of potato leafroll virus in resistant potato genotypes. Ann Appl Biol 107:205–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Casper, R. 1977. Detection of potato leafroll virus in potato and inPhysalis floridana by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Phytopathol Z 90:364–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clark, M.F. and A.N. Adams. 1977. Characteristics of the microplate method of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of plant viruses. J Gen Virol 34:475–483.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clarke, R.G., R.H. Converse and M. Kojima. 1980. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect potato leafroll virus in potato tubers and viruliferous aphids. Plant Disease 64:43–46.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hanafï, A., E.B. Radcliffe and D.W. Ragsdale. 1989. Spread and control of potato leafroll virus in Minnesota. J Econ Entomol 82:1201–1206.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hill, S.A. and E.A. Jackson. 1984. An investigation of the reliability of ELISA as a practical test for detecting potato leafroll virus and potato virus Y in tubers. Plant Pathol (Lond) 33:21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Knutson, K.W. and G.W. Bishop. 1964. Potato leafroll virus: effect of date of inoculation on percent infection and symptom expression. Am Potato J 41:227–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McClave, J.T. and F.H. Dietrich, II. 1982. Statistics. Dellen Publishing Co., San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peters, D. and R.A.C. Jones. 1981. Potato leafroll virus, pp. 68–70.In: W.J. Hooker, (Ed.), Compendium of Potato Diseases. American Phytopathology Society, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ragsdale, D.W. 1987. Effect of storage conditions and time on serological evaluation of potato foliage for potato leafroll virus. Am Potato J 64:454.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Storch, R.H. and F.E. Manzer. 1985. Effect of time and date of inoculation, plant age, and temperature on translocation of potato leafroll virus into potato tubers. Am Potato J 62:137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sutula, C.L., J.M. Gillett, S.M. Morrissey and D.C. Ramsdell. 1986. Interpreting ELISA data and establishing the positive-negative threshold. Plant Disease 70:722–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tamada, T. and B.D. Harrison. 1980. Factors affecting the detection of potato leafroll virus in potato foliage by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Ann Appl Biol 95:209–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tamada, T. and B.D. Harrison. 1980. Application of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to the detection of potato leafroll virus in potato tubers. Ann Appl Biol 96:67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathy L. Flanders
    • 1
  • David W. Ragsdale
    • 1
  • Edward B. Radcliffe
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EntomologyUniversity of MinnesotaSt. Paul

Personalised recommendations