Discrepancies in Serology-Based and Nucleic Acid-Based Detection and Quantitation of Tomato Spotted Wilt Orthotospovirus in Leaf and Root Tissues from Symptomatic and Asymptomatic Peanut Plants.
Arachis hypogaea L.
overestimation
serological detection
spotted wilt
tissue type
virus accumulation
Journal
Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2076-0817
Titre abrégé: Pathogens
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101596317
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Nov 2021
12 Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
31
08
2021
revised:
29
10
2021
accepted:
10
11
2021
entrez:
27
11
2021
pubmed:
28
11
2021
medline:
28
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Thrips-transmitted tomato spotted wilt orthotospovirus (TSWV) causes spotted wilt disease in peanuts. A serological test (DAS-ELISA) is often used to detect TSWV in peanut leaf samples. However, in a few studies, DAS-ELISA detected more TSWV infection in root than leaf samples. It was not clear if the increased detection was due to increased TSWV accumulation in root tissue or merely an overestimation. Additionally, it was unclear if TSWV detection in asymptomatic plants would be affected by the detection technique. TSWV infection in leaf and root tissue from symptomatic and asymptomatic plants was compared via DAS-ELISA, RT-PCR, and RT-qPCR. TSWV incidence did not vary by DAS-ELISA, RT-PCR, and RT-qPCR in leaf and root samples of symptomatic plants or in leaf samples of asymptomatic plants. In contrast, significantly more TSWV infection and virus load were detected in root samples of asymptomatic plants via DAS-ELISA than other techniques suggesting that DAS-ELISA overestimated TSWV incidence and load. TSWV loads from symptomatic plants via RT-qPCR were higher in leaf than root samples, while TSWV loads in leaf and root samples from asymptomatic plants were not different but were lower than those in symptomatic plants. These findings suggested that peanut tissue type and detection technique could affect accurate TSWV detection and/or quantitation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34832630
pii: pathogens10111476
doi: 10.3390/pathogens10111476
pmc: PMC8624541
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : The National Peanut Board
ID : NPRI
Références
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016 Jan 15;82(6):1966-1975
pubmed: 26773088
J Virol Methods. 2002 Mar;101(1-2):37-48
pubmed: 11849682
Virus Res. 2011 Aug;159(2):101-9
pubmed: 21620508
J Virol Methods. 1994 Mar;46(3):303-11
pubmed: 8006111
Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2003;41:305-24
pubmed: 14527331
Plant Dis. 1998 Jun;82(6):610-614
pubmed: 30857008
CSH Protoc. 2008 Mar 01;2008:pdb.top20
pubmed: 21356797
Plant Dis. 1999 Oct;83(10):966
pubmed: 30841092
Trends Plant Sci. 2014 Feb;19(2):90-8
pubmed: 24332225
Plant Dis. 1998 Aug;82(8):900-904
pubmed: 30856918
Plant Dis. 2017 Jan;101(1):178-185
pubmed: 30682294
Mol Biotechnol. 2004 Feb;26(2):133-46
pubmed: 14764939
J Gen Virol. 1977 Mar;34(3):475-83
pubmed: 323416
Plant Dis. 2002 Sep;86(9):939-944
pubmed: 30818552
Plant Dis. 2010 Jul;94(7):898-904
pubmed: 30743550
Curr Opin Virol. 2015 Dec;15:80-9
pubmed: 26340723
Plant Dis. 2000 Apr;84(4):459-464
pubmed: 30841170
Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2003;41:53-75
pubmed: 12704217
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997 Oct;63(10):3741-51
pubmed: 9327537
J Econ Entomol. 2013 Apr;106(2):587-96
pubmed: 23786043
Virus Res. 2014 Jun 24;186:20-31
pubmed: 24361981
Plant Physiol. 1997 Nov;115(3):869-873
pubmed: 12223850
J Virol Methods. 2003 Dec;114(1):65-9
pubmed: 14599680
Phytopathology. 2014 Feb;104(2):202-10
pubmed: 24025049
Plant Dis. 2008 Sep;92(9):1307-1312
pubmed: 30769449
J Infect Dis. 1988 Dec;158(6):1154-7
pubmed: 2461996
Int Microbiol. 2003 Dec;6(4):233-43
pubmed: 13680391
Environ Entomol. 2015 Feb;44(1):136-43
pubmed: 26308816
Plant Physiol. 1995 Oct;109(2):347-52
pubmed: 7480335
Plant Dis. 2006 Apr;90(4):493-500
pubmed: 30786600
Nucleic Acids Res. 2002 Mar 15;30(6):1292-305
pubmed: 11884626
Phytopathology. 2009 Apr;99(4):404-10
pubmed: 19271982