Overvåking- og kartleggingsprogram for tomatbrunflekkvirus i 2021 og 2022. Analysene er utført på oppdrag fra Mattilsynet

Tomat er følsom for mange virus og viroider, men det har likevel ikke vært vanlig å finne virus og viroider i norske tomatveksthus de siste ti-årene. Det har nå dukket opp et nytt virus i tomat i Europa som vekker stor bekymring. Det er tomatbrunflekkvirus (tomato brown rugose fruit virus, ToBRFV). Mattilsynet gjennomførte derfor i 2021 og 2022 et kartleggingsprogram for ToBRFV i samarbeid med NIBIO. I 2021, ble det samlet inn 394 prøver (som representerte 3940 individuelle planter) fra i alt 17 gartnerier, hovedsakelig fra Rogaland. Det ble i 2022 samlet inn 150 prøver (som representerte 3000 individuelle planter) fra i alt 7 småplante tomatgartnerier. Det ble ikke påvist ToBRFV i noen av prøvene. Det ble imidlertid funnet ToBRFV i en prøve som ble sendt inn til Planteklinikken fra et mindre gartneri i Vestfold på forsommeren 2021.Overvåking- og kartleggingsprogram for tomatbrunflekkvirus i 2021 og 2022. Analysene er utført på oppdrag fra MattilsynetpublishedVersio

Kartlegging av virus i jordbær 2017 og 2018. Resultater fra OK-programmet.

Det ble sommeren 2017 og 2018 gjennomført et artleggingsprogram for å undersøke om plantemateriale av jordbær som var nylig importert, kunne være infisert av virus. Det ble tatt ut stikkprøver i jordbærfeltene hos utvalgte bærprodusenter som hadde baser sin produksjon på importerte planter, i 2017 til sammen 150 prøver fra 20 bruk i fylkene Hedmark, Oppland, Vestfold, Buskerud, Agder, Rogaland og Sogn og Fjordane. I 2018 ble det tatt ut 156 prøver fra 14 bruk i fylkene Østfold, Akershus, Møre og Romsdal og Trøndelag. Disse prøvene ble testet for fire bladlusoverførte virus som er relativt vanlige i Europa, men ikke i Norden: jordbær-nervebåndvirus (strawberry vein banding virus, SVBV), jordbær-mildmosaikkvirus (strawberry mottle virus, SMoV), jordbær-bladgulningvirus (strawberry mild yellow edge virus, SMYEV) og jordbær-bladkrøllevirus (strawberry crinkle virus, SCV). Det ble i 2017 påvist virus i prøver fra tre lokaliteter: SCV ble funnet på tre steder, mens SMYEV ble funnet på ett sted i en prøve som hadde dobbeltinfeksjon med SMYEV og SCV. Prøvene hadde ikke synlige symptomer. I 2018 ble det blant 156 prøver påvist virus i én prøve – det var SVBV i en prøve av ‘Sonata’ i Akershus. Denne prøven hadde heller ikke synlige symptomer.publishedVersio

Virus i jordbær 2017. Resultater fra OK-programmet.

Det ble sommeren 2017 gjennomført et kartleggingsprogram for å undersøke om importert plantemateriale av jordbær kunne være infisert av virus. Det ble tatt ut stikkprøver i jordbærfeltene hos utvalgte bærprodusenter som hadde baser sin produksjon på importerte planter, til sammen 150 prøver. Disse prøvene ble testet for fire bladlusoverførte virus som er relativt vanlige i Europa, men ikke i Norden: jordbær-nervebåndvirus (strawberry vein banding virus), jordbær-mildmosaikkvirus (strawberry mottle virus), jordbær-bladgulningvirus (strawberry mild yellow edge virus) og jordbærbladkrøllevirus (strawberry crinkle virus). Det ble påvist virus i prøver fra tre lokaliteter: strawberry crinkle virus ble funnet på tre steder, mens strawberry mild yellow edge virus ble funnet på ett sted i en prøve som hadde dobbeltinfeksjon med strawberry mild yellow edge virus og strawberry crinkle virus. Prøvene hadde ikke synlige symptomer.publishedVersio

Kartlegging for sharkavirus 2013

Sharkavirus (Plum pox virus, PPV) er en karanteneskadegjører som har blitt funnet i plomme, fersken og aprikos i Norge. Første påvisning var i 1998. Siden da har det pågått et kartleggings- og utryddingsprogram med det mål å utrydde sharkavirus fra frukthager med kommersiell plommedyrking i Norge. Det ble testet 2392 prøver for sharkavirus i 2013. Av disse var 625 kvistprøver testet i perioden januar til mai, mens 1767 var bladprøver. Det ble ikke påvist sharkavirus i noen av kvistprøvene. I alt 47 prøver slo ut positiv for sharkavirus i 2013. Disse prøvene ble funnet på 10 lokaliteter, hvorav 8 var helt nye. I alt 12 lokaliteter som hadde hatt funn tidligere ble inspisert på nytt i 2013 uten at det ble påvist sharkavirus. Siden 1998 har det blitt testet mer enn 80 000 trær på 921 lokaliteter (frukthager, privathager, planteskoler og hagesentere). Det har blitt påvist sharkavirus på 88 lokaliteter. Vi kan regne smitten for å være utryddet på 80 % av disse lokalitetene. Med en god oppfølging som har inkludert grundig inspeksjon, testing av alle plommetrær på lokaliteter med smitte, og rydding av infiserte trær, har en lykkes godt med å rydde smitte i alle viktige fruktområder. Det er imidlertid et problem at virkningen av bekjempelsesarbeidet blir dårlig på grunn av at det følger med smitte med nytt plantemateriale som importeres til å etablere nyplantinger

Heksekost på eple – nye utbrudd

Heksekost på eple er en karanteneskadegjører. Høsten 2010 er det påvist heksekost i eple fra 11 frukthager, 10 i Sogn og 1 i Telemark. Sannsynligvis står det infiserte trær på mange flere steder. I Sogn er det funnet heksekost både i Leikanger/Hermansverk, Slinde, Ylvisåker og Lærdal. I frukthagene med påvist smitte var det tydelig redusert fruktstørrelse på flere sorter, særlig var dette framtredende i sorten Discovery.publishedVersio

Known and Potential Invertebrate Vectors of Raspberry Viruses

The estimated global production of raspberry from year 2016 to 2020 averaged 846,515 tons. The most common cultivated Rubus spp. is European red raspberry (Rubus idaeus L. subsp. idaeus). Often cultivated for its high nutritional value, the red raspberry (Rubus idaeus) is susceptible to multiple viruses that lead to yield loss. These viruses are transmitted through different mechanisms, of which one is invertebrate vectors. Aphids and nematodes are known to be vectors of specific raspberry viruses. However, there are still other potential raspberry virus vectors that are not well-studied. This review aimed to provide an overview of studies related to this topic. All the known invertebrates feeding on raspberry were summarized. Eight species of aphids and seven species of plant-parasitic nematodes were the only proven raspberry virus vectors. In addition, the eriophyid mite, Phyllocoptes gracilis, has been suggested as the natural vector of raspberry leaf blotch virus based on the current available evidence. Interactions between vector and non-vector herbivore may promote the spread of raspberry viruses. As a conclusion, there are still multiple aspects of this topic that require further studies to get a better understanding of the interactions among the viral pathogens, invertebrate vectors, and non-vectors in the raspberry agroecosystem. Eventually, this will assist in development of better pest management strategies.publishedVersio

Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation of poinsettia, Euphorbia pulcherrima, with virus-derived hairpin RNA constructs confers resistance to Poinsettia mosaic virus

Agrobacterium-mediated transformation for poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima Willd. Ex Klotzsch) is reported here for the first time. Internode stem explants of poinsettia cv. Millenium were transformed by Agrobacterium tumefaciens, strain LBA 4404, harbouring virus-derived hairpin (hp) RNA gene constructs to induce RNA silencing-mediated resistance to Poinsettia mosaic virus (PnMV). Prior to transformation, an efficient somatic embryogenesis system was developed for poinsettia cv. Millenium in which about 75% of the explants produced somatic embryos. In 5 experiments utilizing 868 explants, 18 independent transgenic lines were generated. An average transformation frequency of 2.1% (range 1.2–3.5%) was revealed. Stable integration of transgenes into the poinsettia nuclear genome was confirmed by PCR and Southern blot analysis. Both single- and multiple-copy transgene integration into the poinsettia genome were found among transformants. Transgenic poinsettia plants showing resistance to mechanical inoculation of PnMV were detected by double antibody sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (DAS-ELISA). Northern blot analysis of low molecular weight RNA revealed that transgene-derived small interfering (si) RNA molecules were detected among the poinsettia transformants prior to inoculation. The Agrobacterium-mediated transformation methodology developed in the current study should facilitate improvement of this ornamental plant with enhanced disease resistance, quality improvement and desirable colour alteration. Because poinsettia is a non-food, non-feed plant and is not propagated through sexual reproduction, this is likely to be more acceptable even in areas where genetically modified crops are currently not cultivated

Host range and symptomatology of Pepino mosaic virus strains occurring in Europe

Pepino mosaic virus (PepMV) has caused great concern in the greenhouse tomato industry after it was found causing a new disease in tomato in 1999. The objective of this paper is to investigate alternative hosts and compare important biological characteristics of the three PepMV strains occurring in Europe when tested under different environmental conditions. To this end we compared the infectivity and symptom development of three, well characterized isolates belonging to three different PepMV strains, EU-tom, Ch2 and US1, by inoculating them on tomato, possible alternative host plants in the family Solanaceae and selected test plants. The inoculation experiments were done in 10 countries from south to north in Europe. The importance of alternative hosts among the solanaceous crops and the usefulness of test plants in the biological characterization of PepMV isolates are discussed. Our data for the three strains tested at 10 different European locations with both international and local cultivars showed that eggplant is an alternative host of PepMV. Sweet pepper is not an important host of PepMV, but potato can be infected when the right isolate is matched with a specific cultivar. Nicotiana occidentalis 37B is a useful indicator plant for PepMV studies, since it reacts with a different symptomatology to each one of the PepMV strains.Ravnikar, M.; Blystad, D.; Van Der Vlugt, R.; Alfaro Fernández, AO.; Del Carmen Cordoba, M.; Bese, G.; Hristova, D.... (2015). Host range and symptomatology of Pepino mosaic virus strains occurring in Europe. European Journal of Plant Pathology. 143(1):43-56. doi:10.1007/s10658-015-0664-1S43561431Alfaro-Fernández, A., Córdoba-Sellés, M. C., Herrera-Vásquez, J. A., Cebrián, M. C., & Jordá, C. (2009). Transmission of Pepino mosaic virus by the fungal vector Olpidium virulentus. Journal of Phytopathology, 158, 217–226.Charmichael, D. J., Rey, M. E. C., Naidoo, S., Cook, G., & van Heerden, S. W. (2011). First report of Pepino mosaic virus infecting tomato in South Africa. Plant Disease, 95(6), 767.2.Córdoba, M. C., Martínez-Priego, L., & Jordá, C. (2004). New natural hosts of Pepino mosaic virus in Spain. Plant Disease, 88, 906.Córdoba-Sellés, M. C., García-Rández, A., Alfaro-Fernández, A., & Jordá-Gutiérrez, C. (2007). Seed transmission of pepino mosaic virus and efficacy of tomato seed disinfection treatments. Plant Disease, 91, 1250–1254.Efthimiou, K. E., Gatsios, A. P., Aretakis, K. C., Papayannis, L. C., & Katis, N. I. (2011). First report of Pepino mosaic virus infecting greenhouse cherry tomato in Greece. Plant Disease, 95(1), 78.2.Fakhro, A., von Bargen, S., Bandte, M., Büttner, C., Franken, P., & Schwarz, D. (2011). Susceptibility of different plant species and tomato cultivars to two isolates of Pepino mosaic virus. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 129, 579–590.Gómez, P., Sempere, R. N., Elena, S. F., & Aranda, M. A. (2009). Mixed infections of Pepino mosaic virus strains modulate the evolutionary dynamics of this emergent virus. Journal of Virology, 83, 12378–12387.Hanssen, I. M., Paeleman, A., Wittemans, L., Goen, K., Lievens, B., Bragard, C., Vanachter, A. C. R. C., & Thomma, B. P. H. J. (2008). Genetic characterization of Pepino mosaic virus isolates from Belgian greenhouse tomatoes reveals genetic recombination. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 121, 131–146.Hanssen, I. M., Paeleman, A., Vandewoestijne, E., Van Bergen, L., Bragard, C., Lievens, B., Vanachter, A. C. R. C., & Thomma, B. P. H. J. (2009). Pepino mosaic virus isolates and differential symptomatology in tomato. Plant Pathology, 58, 450–460.Hanssen, I. M., Mumford, R., Blystad, D.-G., Cortez, I., Hasiów-Jaroszewska, B., Hristova, D., Pagán, I., Pereira, A.-M., Peters, J., Pospieszny, H., Ravnikar, M., Stijger, I., Tomassoli, L., Varveri, C., van der Vlugt, R., & Nielsen, S. L. (2010). Seed transmission of Pepino mosaic virus in tomato. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 126, 145–152.Hasiów-Jaroszewska, B., Borodynko, N., Jackowiak, P., Figlerowicz, M., & Pospieszny, H. (2010a). Pepino mosaic virus – a pathogen of tomato crops in Poland: biology, evolution and diagnostics. Journal of Plant Protection Research, 50, 470–476.Hasiów-Jaroszewska, B., Jackowiak, P., Borodynko, N., Figlerowicz, M., & Pospieszny, H. (2010b). Quasispecies nature of Pepino mosaic virus and its evolutionary dynamics. Virus Genes, 41, 260–267.Jeffries, C. J. (1998). FAO/IPGRI technical guidelines for the safe movement of germplasm no. 19. Potato. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, Rome/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome pp 177Jones, R. A. C., Koenig, R., & Lesemann, D. E. (1980). Pepino mosaic virus, a new potexvirus from pepino (Solanum muricatum). Annals of Applied Biology, 94, 61–68.Jordá, C., Lázaro Pérez, A., & Martínez Culebras, P. (2001). First report of Pepino mosaic virus on natural hosts. Plant Disease, 85, 1292.King, A. M. Q., Adams, M. J., Carstens, E. B., Lefkowitz, E. J., (eds). (2012). potexvirus, pp 912–915, in virus taxonomy, classification and nomenclature of viruses; ninth report of the international committee on taxonomy of viruses (p 1327) London, UK: Elsevier Academic PressLing, K.-S., & Zhang, W. (2011). First report of Pepino mosaic virus infecting tomato in Mexico. Plant Disease, 95(8), 1035.Martin, J., & Mousserion, C. (2002). Potato varieties which are sensitive to the tomato strains of Pepino mosaic virus (PepMV). Phytoma Défence Végétaux, 552, 26–28.Mehle, N., Gutierrez-Aguirre, I., Prezelj, N., Delić, D., Vidic, U., & Ravnikar, M. (2014). Survival and transmission of potato virus Y, pepino mosaic virus, and potato spindle tuber viroid in water. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 80(4), 1455–1462.Moreno-Pérez, M. G., Pagán, I., Aragón-Caballero, L., Cáceres, F., Aurora Fraile, A., & García-Arenal, F. (2014). Ecological and genetic determinants of Pepino mosaic virus emergence. Journal of Virology, 88(6), 3359–3368.Noël, P., Hance, T., & Bragard, C. (2014). Transmission of the pepino mosaic virus by whitefly. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 138, 23–27.Pagan, I., Cordoba-Selles, M. D., Martinez-Priego, L., Fraile, A., Malpica, J. M., Jorda, C., & Garcia-Arenal, F. (2006). Genetic structure of the population of pepino mosaic virus infecting tomato crops in Spain. Phytopathology, 96, 274–279.Papayiannis, L. C., Kokkinos, C. D., & Alfaro-Fernández, A. (2012). Detection, characterization and host range studies of Pepino mosaic virus in Cyprus. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 132, 1–7.Pospieszny, H., Haslow, B., & Borodynko, N. (2008). Characterization of two Polish isolates of Pepino mosaic virus. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 122, 443–445.Salomone, A., & Roggero, P. (2002). Host range, seed transmission and detection by ELISA and lateral flow of an Italian isolate of Pepino mosaic virus. Journal of Plant Pathology, 84, 65–68.Samson, R. G., Allen, T. C., & Whitworth, J. L. (1993). Evaluation of direct tissue blotting to detect potato viruses. American Potato Journal, 70, 257–265.Schwarz, D., Beuch, U., Bandte, M., Fakhro, A., Büttner, C., & Obermeier, C. (2010). Spread and interaction of pepino mosaic virus (PepMV) and pythium aphanidermatum in a closed nutrient solution recirculation system: effects on tomato growth and yield. Plant Pathology, 59(3), 443–452.Shipp, J. L., Buitenhuis, R., Stobbs, L., Wang, K., Kim, W. S., & Ferguson, G. (2008). Vectoring of pepino mosaic virus by bumble-bees in tomato greenhouses. Annals of Applied Biology, 153, 149–155.Van der Vlugt, R. A. A. (2009). Pepino mosaic virus (review). Hellenic Plant Protection Journal, 2, 47–56.Van der Vlugt, R. A. A., & Stijger, C. C. M. M. (2008). Pepino mosaic virus. In B. W. J. Mahy & M. H. V. Van Regenmortel (Eds.), Encyclopedia of virology (5th ed., pp. 103–108). Wageningen: Oxford Elsevier.Van der Vlugt, R. A. A., Stijger, C. C. M. M., Verhoeven, J. T. J., & Lesemann, D.-E. (2000). First report of Pepino mosaic virus on tomato. Plant Disease, 84, 103.Van der Vlugt, R. A. A., Cuperus, C., Vink, J., Stijger, I. C. M. M., Lesemann, D.-E., Verhoeven, J. T. J., & Roenhorst, J. W. (2002). Identification and characterization of Pepino mosaic potexvirus in tomato. Bulletin EPPO/EPPO Bulletin, 32, 503–508.Verchot-Lubicz, J., Chang-Ming, Y., & Bamunusinghe, D. (2007). Molecular biology of potexviruses: recent advances. Journal of General Virology, 88(6), 1643–1655.Verhoeven, J. T. H. J., van der Vlugt, R., & Roenhorst, J. W. (2003). High similarity between tomato isolates of pepino mosaic virus suggests a common origin. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 109, 419–425.Werkman, A.W., & Sansford, C.E. (2010). Pest risk analysis for pepino mosaic virus for the EU. Deliverable Report 4.3. EU Sixth Framework project PEPEIRA. http:// www.pepeira.com .Wright, D., & Mumford, R. (1999). Pepino mosaic potexvirus (PepMV): first records in tomato in the United Kingdom. Plant disease notice (89th ed.). York, UK: Central Science Laboratory

2021 Taxonomic update of phylum Negarnaviricota (Riboviria: Orthornavirae), including the large orders Bunyavirales and Mononegavirales.

Correction to: 2021 Taxonomic update of phylum Negarnaviricota (Riboviria: Orthornavirae), including the large orders Bunyavirales and Mononegavirales. Archives of Virology (2021) 166:3567–3579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-021-05266-wIn March 2021, following the annual International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) ratification vote on newly proposed taxa, the phylum Negarnaviricota was amended and emended. The phylum was expanded by four families (Aliusviridae, Crepuscuviridae, Myriaviridae, and Natareviridae), three subfamilies (Alpharhabdovirinae, Betarhabdovirinae, and Gammarhabdovirinae), 42 genera, and 200 species. Thirty-nine species were renamed and/or moved and seven species were abolished. This article presents the updated taxonomy of Negarnaviricota as now accepted by the ICTV.This work was supported in part through Laulima Government Solutions, LLC prime contract with the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) under Contract No. HHSN272201800013C. J.H.K. performed this work as an employee of Tunnell Government Services (TGS), a subcontractor of Laulima Government Solutions, LLC under Contract No. HHSN272201800013C. This work was also supported in part with federal funds from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), under Contract No. 75N91019D00024, Task Order No. 75N91019F00130 to I.C., who was supported by the Clinical Monitoring Research Program Directorate, Frederick National Lab for Cancer Research. This work was also funded in part by Contract No. HSHQDC-15-C-00064 awarded by DHS S&T for the management and operation of The National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center, a federally funded research and development center operated by the Battelle National Biodefense Institute (V.W.); and NIH contract HHSN272201000040I/HHSN27200004/D04 and grant R24AI120942 (N.V., R.B.T.). S.S. acknowledges partial support from the Special Research Initiative of Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station (MAFES), Mississippi State University, and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, US Department of Agriculture, Hatch Project 1021494. Part of this work was supported by the Francis Crick Institute which receives its core funding from Cancer Research UK (FC001030), the UK Medical Research Council (FC001030), and the Wellcome Trust (FC001030).S