Advertisement

Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection

, Volume 113, Issue 4, pp 145–149 | Cite as

Reaction of 111 cultivars of Triticum durum Desf. from some the world’s main genetic pools to soil-borne cereal mosaic virus

  • C. Ratti
  • C. Rubies-Autonell
  • M. Maccaferri
  • S. Stefanelli
  • M. C. Sanguineti
  • V. VallegaEmail author
Article

Abstract

One-hundred and eleven cultivars of durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) representative of a large portion of the genetic diversity present in the world’s improved durum wheat gene pool were grown two seasons in a field with natural inoculum sources of soil-borne cereal mosaic virus (SBCMV) near Bologna (Italy). The materials were evaluated for resistance on the basis of symptom severity expression and Sbcmv concentration in leaves according to Das (double antibody sandwich) ELISA. Among the cultivars screened, two-year overall means ranged from 0.1 to 3.2 for symptom severity (on a 0 to 4 scale) and from 0.036 to 1.702 for ELISA absorbance values. Thirty-five cultivars showed relatively low ELISA values and very mild symptoms in both seasons. These relatively more resistant entries included cultivar Edmore and twelve of its derivatives, independently bred in Canada, France, Italy and the U.S. Twenty-one entries consistently gave ELISA values and symptom scores higher than that of cultivar Grazia, the susceptible control. Because of their extreme reactions to Sbcmv and wide adaptability, a number of the cultivars tested should prove useful for investigating the existence of pathotypes within SBCMV, and of diverse cultivar responses in regard to Furoviruses until recently considered as belonging to the same species, namely soil-borne wheat mosaic virus (SBWMV) and Chinese wheat mosaic virus (CWMV).

Keywords

durum wheat Edmore Elisa Polymyxa graminis Led. resistance soil-borne cereal mosaic virus soil-borne wheat mosaic virus 

Reaktion von 111 Hartweizensorten (Triticum durum Desf.) aus einigen Haupt-Genpools der Welt gegenüber dem Bodenbürtigen Getreidemosaikvirus

Zusammenfassung

In zweijährigen Versuchen wurden 111 Sorten von Hartweizen (Triticum durum Desf.), die einen großen Teil des verfügbaren Genpools repräsentieren, unter natürlichen Bedingungen auf Resistenz gegenüber dem Bodenbürtigen Getreidemosaikvirus (SBCMV) getestet. Der Anbau der Pflanzen erfolgte auf einem SBCMV-Befallsstandort in der Nähe von Bologna. Die Intensität der Symptomausprägung und die mit Hilfe des DAS-ELISA bestimmte Viruskonzentration in den Blättern dienten als Bewertungskriterien. Im Durchschnitt der beiden Jahre ergaben sich für die Sorten Boniturnoten zwischen 0.1 und 3.2 für die Symptomstärke (auf einer Skala von 0 bis 4) und Extinktionswerte zwischen 0.036 und 1.702. Insgesamt 31 Sorten wiesen höhere Extinktionswerte und Symptomstärke auf als der anfällige Standard „Grazia“; 35 Sorten zeigten dagegen deutliche Resistenz. Zu ihnen gehörten die Sorte „Edmore“ und 12 ihrer Abkömmlinge, die als Sorten unabhängig voneinander in Kanada, Frankreich, Italien und den Usa gezüchtet wurden. Die beobachteten großen Anfälligkeitsunterschiede der Sorten eröffnen die Möglichkeit, die Pathogenität bzw. Virulenz von Isolaten des SBCMV, des Bodenbürtigen Weizenmosaikvirus (SBWMV) und des Chinese wheat mosaic virus (CWMV) vergleichend zu prüfen.

Stichwörter

Bodenbürtiges Getreidemosaikvirus Boden-bürtiges Weizenmosaikvirus Edmore ELISA Hartweizen Polymyxa graminis Led. Resistenz 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature

  1. Bonnefoy, M., J. Boursereau, R. Chesneau, 1994: Comportment des variétés face aux virus de la mosaique du blé et de la mosaique jaune du blé. Proceedings, Workshop on Mosaics of Cereals Transmitted by Polymyxa graminis Led., Blois, France, 7–8 April 1994, 57–62.Google Scholar
  2. Canova, A., A. Quaglia, 1960: Il mosaico del frumento. Informat. Fitopatol. 10, 206–208.Google Scholar
  3. Canova, A., 1966: Ricerche sulle malattie da virus delle graminacee. III Polymyxa graminis Led. vettore del mosaico del frumento. Phytopathol. Medit. 5, 53–58.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, M.F., A.N. Adams, 1977: Characteristics of the microplate method of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detection of plant viruses. J. Virol. Meth. 34, 475–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clover, G., D. Wright, C. Henry, 1999: Occurrence of Soil-borne wheat mosaic virus (SBWMV) in the United Kingdom. Proceedings, Fourth Symposium of the International Working Group on Plant Viruses with Fungal Vectors. Monterey, CA, USA, 5-8 October 1999, 105–108.Google Scholar
  6. Diao, A.P., J.P. Chen, R. Ye, T. Zheng, S.Q. Yu, J.F. Antoniw, M.J. Adams, 1999: Complete sequence and genome properties of Chinese wheat mosaic virus, a new Furovirus from China. J. Gen. Virol. 80, 1141–1145.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Estes, A.P., M.K. Brakke, 1966: Correlation of Polymyxa graminis with transmission of Soil-borne wheat mosaic virus. Virology 28, 772–774.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hunger, R.M., C.R. Armitage, J.L. Sherwood, 1989: Effects of Wheat soil-borne mosaic virus on hard red winter wheat. Plant Dis. 73, 949–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huth, W., D.E. Lesemann, 1990: Wheat soil-borne mosaic virus isolated from rye in Germany. Proceedings, First Symposium of the International Working Group on Plant Viruses with Fungal Vectors, Braunschweig, Germany, August 21-24, 1990, 139–141.Google Scholar
  10. Koenig, R., W. Huth, 2000: Soil-borne rye mosaic and European wheat mosaic virus: two names for a Furovirus with variable genome properties which is widely distributed in several cereal crops in Europe. Arch. Virol. 145, 689–697.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Koenig, R., W. Huth, 2003: Natural infection of wheat by the type strain of Soil-borne wheat mosaic virus in a field in Souhern Germany. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 109, 191–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maccaferri, M., C. Ratti, R. Tuberosa, C. Rubies-Autonell, V. Vallega, M.C. Sanguineti, 2005a: A durum wheat germ-plasm collection suitable for gene discovery via association mapping. Proceedings, International Symposium on Genomics-based Plant Germplasm Research, Beijing, China, April 25-28, 2005, 47–57.Google Scholar
  13. Maccaferri, M., M.C. Sanguineti, E. Noli, R. Tuberosa, 2005b: Population structure and long-range linkage disequilibrium in a durum wheat elite collection. Mol. Breed. 15, 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mckinney, H.H., 1923: Investigations of the rosette disease of wheat and its control. J. Agric. Res. 23, 771–800.Google Scholar
  15. Moseman, J.G., H.H. Mckinney, C.W. Roane, 1954: Reaction of wheat varieties and selections to the soil-borne viruses in Southeastern United States. Plant Dis. Rep. 38, 19–24.Google Scholar
  16. Nielsen, S.L., M. Nicolaisen, R. Koenig, W. Huth, 1999: First report of Soil-borne rye mosaic virus in rye in Denmark. Plant Dise. 83, 1074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ordon, F., W. Friedt, 2004: Genetic aspects of resistance to cereal viruses. In: Lapierre, H., Signoret, P.-A. (eds.): Viruses and Virus Diseases of Poaeceae (Gramineae), pp 170–172. INRA editions, Paris.Google Scholar
  18. Ratti, C., A. Pisi, V. Vallega, C. Rubies-Autonell, 2005: Molecular characterization of Italian Soilborne cereal mosaic virus (SBCMV) isolates. %20Soil-borne%20cereal%20-%20Ratti%20et%20al.pdf.Google Scholar
  19. Rubies-Autonell, C., V. Vallega, 1987: Observations on a mixed Soil-borne wheat mosaic virus and Wheat spindle streak mosaic virus infection in durum wheat. J. Phytopathol. 119, 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rubies-Autonell, C., V. Vallega, C. Ratti, 2003: Reactions of cul-tivars of common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to Soil-borne wheat mosaic virus in northern Italy during 1996–97. Z. Pflan-zenkrankh. Pflanzensch. — J. Plant Dis. Protect. 106, 284–290.Google Scholar
  21. Shirako, Y., N. Suzuki, R.C. French, 2000: Similarity and divergence among viruses in the genus Furovirus. Virology 270, 201–207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Torrance, L., R. Koenig, 2005: Genus Furovirus. In: Fauquet, C.M., Mayo, M.A., Maniloff, J., Desselberger, U., Ball, L.A. (eds.): Virus Taxonomy, pp. 1027–1032. Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego and London.Google Scholar
  23. Vallega, V., C. Rubies-Autonell, 1985: Reactions of Italian Triticum durum cultivars to Soil-borne wheat mosaic. Plant Dis. 69, 64–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vallega, V., C. Rubies-Autonell, 1989: Ulteriori indagini sulla diffusione del virus del mosaico comune del frumento in Italia. Informat. Fitopatol. 39, 57–58.Google Scholar
  25. Vallega, V., C. Rubies-Autonell, M. Turina, C. Ratti, S. Contoli, 1999: Reactions to SBWMV of durum wheat cultivars grown in northern Italy during 1995–96. Z. Pflanzenkrankh. Pflanzensch. — J. Plant Dis. Protect. 106, 284–290.Google Scholar
  26. Vallega, V., C. Rubies-Autonell, C. Ratti, 2003: Reaction of durum wheat cultivars to mixed SBWMV and WSSMV infection in central Italy. Phytopathol. Medit. 42, 177–182.Google Scholar
  27. Vallega, V., C. Rubies-Autonell, C. Ratti, L. Bianchi, 2004: Comportamento di cultivar di frumento duro e tenero rispetto al virus del mosaico comune del frumento (SBWMV): risultati di sei anni di prove. Proceedings, Giornate Fitopatologiche, Pescara, Italy, 4-6 May 2004, Vol. 2, 385–392.Google Scholar
  28. Wiese, M.V., 1987: Compendium of Wheat Diseases. American Phytopathological Society, St. Paul, MN, USA.Google Scholar
  29. Yang, J., J. Chen, Y. Cheng, M.J. Adams, 2001: Sequ ence analysis of a Soil-borne wheat mosaic virus isolate from Italy shows that it is the same virus as European wheat mosaic virus and Soil-borne rye mosaic virus. Sci. China Ser. C 44, 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Phythomedizinische Gesellschaft 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Ratti
    • 1
  • C. Rubies-Autonell
    • 1
  • M. Maccaferri
    • 1
  • S. Stefanelli
    • 1
  • M. C. Sanguineti
    • 1
  • V. Vallega
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Agroenvironmental Science and TechnologyUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.C.R.A. Experimental Institute for Cereal ResearchRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations