Hort. Sci. (Prague), 2003, 30(4):129-134 | DOI: 10.17221/3873-HORTSCI

Difference in reactions of apricot and peach cultivars to Plum pox virus: serological and symptomatological evaluation

J. Polák, I. Oukropec, B. Krška, J. Pívalová, W. Miller
1 Research Institute of Crop Production, Division of Plant Medicine, Prague-Ruzyně, Czech Republic
2 Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry, Brno, Faculty of Horticulture, Lednice, Czech Republic
3 Clemson University, Department of Plant Pathology, Clemson, USA

Differences in reactions to infection and different development of Plum pox virus (PPV) symptoms were observed in leaves and fruits of one hundred sixty-five apricot and seventy-nine peach cultivars and hybrids. A very broad spectrum of reactions from high susceptibility to high resistance and immunity was proved in apricot cultivars and hybrids and the results were published (Polák et al. 1997). A much narrower spectrum of reactions was proved in peach cultivars. Relative concentrations of PPV by ELISA in flowers, intensity of virus symptoms in leaves and fruits of peach cultivars were evaluated. The relative concentration of PPV coat protein (PPV-CP) in flowers was found to be positively correlated with the intensity of leaf and fruit symptoms in most cultivars. On the basis of obtained results cultivars of peaches were divided into four groups and classified as medium resistant, tolerant, medium susceptible and susceptible to PPV. None of the investigated cultivars was immune, highly resistant or resistant to PPV. Eighteen peach cultivars were classified to be medium resistant to PPV. Nine peach cultivars were characterized as tolerant to PPV, with high relative concentration of PPV-CP protein in flowers and mild symptoms in leaves and fruits. Twenty-seven peach cultivars were characterized as medium susceptible to PPV. Twenty-five peach cultivars were rated as susceptible to PPV. It is recommended to grow medium resistant peach cultivars in the areas where PPV is widely distributed.

Keywords: Plum pox virus; apricot; peach; cultivars and hybrids; virus symptoms; virus relative concentration; ELISA; resistance; susceptibility

Published: December 31, 2003  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Polák J, Oukropec I, Krška B, Pívalová J, Miller W. Difference in reactions of apricot and peach cultivars to Plum pox virus: serological and symptomatological evaluation. Hort. Sci. (Prague). 2003;30(4):129-134. doi: 10.17221/3873-HORTSCI.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. ALBRECHTOVÁ L., 1990. The detection of Plum pox virus by ELISA in tissues of peaches during vegetation period. Zahradnictví, 17: 251-262.
    2. ALBRECHTOVÁ L., KAREŠOVÁ R., PLUHAŘ Z., BALCAROVÁ E., 1986. ELISA method used for the evaluation of the resistance of plum cultivars to Plum pox virus. Sbor. ref. X. Čs. Konf. Ochr. Rostl., Brno: 203-204.
    3. AUDERGON Y.M., MORVAN G., DICENTA I., CHASTELLIÉRE G., KARAYIANNIS I., 1995. A method to determine the susceptibility of apricot cultivars to Plum pox virus. Acta Hort., 384: 575-579. Go to original source...
    4. BALAN V., IVASCU A., TOMA S., 1995. Susceptibility of apricot, nectarine and peach cultivars and hybrids to Plum pox virus. Acta Hort., 386: 299-305. Go to original source...
    5. DOSBA F., LANZAC M., PECHEUR G., TEYSSIER B., PIGEMAL J.P., MICHEL M., 1986. Plum pox virus detection by ELISA technique in peach and apricot infected trees at different growing stages. Acta Hort., 193: 187-191. Go to original source...
    6. DOSBA F., ORLIAC S., DUTRANNOY F., MAISON O., MASSONIÉ G., AUDERGON J.M., 1992. Evaluation of resistance to Plum pox virus in apricot trees. Acta Hort., 309: 211-220. Go to original source...
    7. KARAYIANNIS I., 1988. Susceptibility of apricot cultivars to Plum pox virus in Greece. Acta Hort., 235: 271-274. Go to original source...
    8. KOMÍNEK P., BITÓOVÁ M., POLÁK J., 1996. The differentation of Plum pox virus strains isolated in the Czech Republic. Middle European Meeting 96 on Plum Pox, Budapest, 2-4 October 1996: 43.
    9. MAINOU A.C., SYRGIANIDIS G.D., 1992. Evaluation of peach and nectarine varieties according to resistance to sharka (plum pox) virus. Acta Hort., 309: 221-227. Go to original source...
    10. POLÁK J., 1989. Diagnosis of Plum pox virus in infected symptomless trees of apricot, peach and Prunus cerasifera ssp. myrobalana by ELISA and ISEM. Acta Hort., 235: 299-303. Go to original source...
    11. POLÁK J., 1995. Reliability of detection and relative concentration of Plum pox virus determinated by ELISA in an infected peach tree during the vegetation period. Z.Pfl.- Krankh. Pfl.-Schutz., 102: 16-22.
    12. POLÁK J., 1998. Symptomatological and serological evaluation of peach cultivars for resistance to Plum pox virus. Acta Hort., 472: 433-439. Go to original source...
    13. POLÁK J., 1999. Further serological evaluation of peach and nectarine cultivars for resistance to Plum pox virus. Protectia Planterol IX, 36: 15-20.
    14. POLÁK J., OUKROPEC I., CHOD J., KRŠKA B., JANSTA Z., PÍVALOVÁ J., 1995. Virological programme in breeding of apricots for resistance to Plum pox virus in the Czech Republic. Acta Hort., 384: 581-585. Go to original source...
    15. POLÁK J., OUKROPEC I., KOMÍNEK P., KRŠKA B., BITÓOVÁ M., 1997. Detection and evaluation of resistance of apricots and peaches to Plum pox virus. Z. Pfl.- Krankh. Pfl.-Schutz., 104: 466-473.
    16. POLÁK J., PÍVALOVÁ J., DOWLER W., MILLER W., 2003. The evaluation of American peach cultivars for resistance to Plum pox virus. Pl. Protec. Sci., 39: 1-6. Go to original source...
    17. SYRGIANIDIS G., 1979. Research on the sensitivity of apricot varieties to Sharka (Plum pox) virus disease. Agric. Res., III: 42-48.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content