Kadriye ÇAĞLAYAN, Vicente MEDINA, Mona GAZEL, Çiğdem U. SERÇE, Luis SERRANO

Putative agents of fig mosaic disease in Turkey

Leaves from 58 fig tree accessions showing different severity of mosaic and necrotic symptoms were collected in 2 different regions of Turkey and analysed by transmission electron microscope (TEM) and RT-PCR to determine putative causal agents of fig mosaic disease (FMD). Ultrastructural studies showed that double membrane-bound bodies (DMBs) were mainly observed in the parenchyma and mesophyll cells of infected leaves of the cultivars Göklop and Morgüz and some seedlings showing only mosaic symptoms. These bodies were surrounded by a fibrillar matrix in most of the infected cells. Long, flexuous rod-shaped virus-like particles (LFPs) were also observed in vascular tissues of the Bursa Siyahı, Sarılop, Sarızeybek, and Yediveren cultivars, as well as seedlings that exhibited mosaic and necrotic symptoms together. Isometric virus-like particles (IVLPs) were mainly observed in mesophyll parenchyma cells of cv. Yeşilgüz, which showed very mild mosaic symptoms. Some phytoplasma-like bodies, as well as mosaic symptoms, were also observed in the phloem tissues of cv. Morgüz, Göklop, and Yediveren. These kinds of particles were not observed in the healthy plant leaves. RT-PCR analyses revealed that a PCR product of 3.0 kbp was obtained from virus-purified RNA of cvs. Bursa Siyahı, and Sarılop and an unknown cultivar (seedling) using degenerate fig-associated primers. When primers specific for FMD agent in Spain were used, a DNA fragment of 750 bp was amplified from cvs. Göklop and Yeşilgüz. However, no product was obtained by using DC-random primers.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Key words: Fig mosaic disease, electron microscope, PCR, Turkey

Putative agents of fig mosaic disease in Turkey

Keywords:

Key words: Fig mosaic disease, electron microscope, PCR, Turkey,

PDF

___

Achon, M.A., M. Sobrepere and R. Minguell. 2003. Molecular and biological properties of a sugarcane mosaic potyvirus isolate from Spain. Z. Pflanzenk. Pflanzen. 110: 324-331.
Açıkgöz, S and M.T. Döken. 2003. The determination of sampling time for dsRNA isolation of the agent of fig mosaic disease prevalent in Agean Region-Turkey. Acta Hortic. 605: 307-310.
Alfieri, S.A. 1967. Fig Mosaic. Plant Pathol. Circular 64.
Appiano, A., M. Conti and O. Lovisolo. 1990. Mosaico del fico: stato attuale dele conoscenze e nuove osservazioni. Agr. Ricerca 112: 109-112.
Bradfute O.E., R.E. Whitmoyer and R.L. Nault. 1970. Ultrastructure of plant leaf tissue infected with mite-born viral-like particles. P. Elect. Mic. Soc. Am. 28: 178-179.
Brunt, A.A., K. Crabtree, M.J. Dallwitz, A.J. Gibbs, L. Watson and E.J. Zurcher. 1996. Viruses of Plants. CAB International, Wallingford, UK.
Chen, J., J. Chen and M.J. Adams. 2001. A universal PCR primer to detect members of the potyviridae and its use to examine the taxonomic status of several members of the family. Arch. Virol. 146: 757-766.
Comeau, A.M., S. Short and C.A. Suttle, 2004. The use of degenerate- primer random amplification of polymorphic DNA (DP- RAPD) for strain-typing and inferring the genetic similarity among closely related viruses. J. Virol. Method. 118: 95-100.
Condit I.J and W.T. Horne. 1933. A mosaic of the fig in California. Phytopathology 23: 887-896.
Elbeaino, T., M. Digiaro, A. De Stradis and G.P. Martelli. 2006. Partial characterization of a closterovirus associated with a chlorotic mottling of fig. J. Plant Pathol. 88: 187-192.
Elbeaino, T., M. Digiaro, A. De Stradis and G.P. Martelli. 2007. Identification of a second member of the family Closteroviridae in mosaic-diseased figs. J. Plant Pathol. 89: 119-124.
Flock R.A and J.M. Wallace. 1955. Transmission of fig mosaic by the eriophyid mite Aceria ficus. Phytopathology 45: 52-54.
Grbelja, E. 1983. Fig Potyvirus. In: Viruses of plants. (Eds., A.A. Brunt, K. Crabtree, M.J. Dallwitz, M.J. Gibbs, A.J. Watson), Description and lists from VIDE database. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 585-586.
Martelli G.P., M.A. Castelleano and R. Lafortezza. 1993. An ultrastructural study of fig mosaic. Phytopathol. Mediterrane. 32: 33-43.
Medina V., G. Rodrigo. T. Tian. M. Juarez. V.V. Dolia. M.A. Achon and B.W. Falk. 2003. Comparative cytopathology of crinivirus infections in different plant hosts. Ann. Appl. Biol. 143: 99-110.
Nahdi, S., T. Elbeaino, Mm. Digiaro and G. P. Martelli. 2006. First record of fig leaf mottle-associated virus 1 in Tunisia. J. Plant Pathol. 88: 70.
Özalp, M.O and E. Heper. 1972. Ege bölgesi incir mozayik virüsü ve bu virüse dayanıklı incir ağaçları üzerinde araştırmalar. Bitki Kor. Bült. 12: 228-262
Plavsic, B. and D. Milicic. 1980. Intracellular changes in trees infected with fig mosaic. Acta Hortic. 110: 281-286.
Roland J.C. and B. Vian. 1991. General preparation and staining of thin sections. In: Electron microscopy of plant cells, (Eds., J.L. Hall and C. Hawes), Academic Press, New York, pp. 1-66.
Serrano L., J. Ramon, J. Segarra, V. Medina, M.A. Achon and M. Lopez. 2004. New approach in the identification of the causal agent of fig mosaic disease. Acta Hortic. 657: 559-566.
Soylu, S., I. Brown, and J.W. Mansfield. 2005. Cellular reactions in Arabidopsis following challenge by strains of Pseudomonas syringae: from basal resistance to compatibility. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 66: 232-243.
Ülkümen, L., S. Özbek and M. İleri. 1948. İncir ve hastalıkları. Ankara Yüksek Ziraat Enstitüsü Basımevi. Ankara.
Wang D., I.M. Hayes, and A.J. Maule. 1992. Procedures for the efficient purification of pea seed-borne mosaic virus and its genomic RNA. J. Virol. Method. 36: 223-230.