Virus preparations from the mixed-infected P70 Pinot Noir accession exhibit GLRaV-1/GVA ‘end-to-end’ particles
P70 is a Pinot Noir grapevine accession that displays strong leafroll disease symptoms. A high-throughput sequencing (HTS)-based analysis established that P70 was mixed-infected by two variants of grapevine leafroll-associated virus 1 (GLRaV-1, genus Ampelovirus) and one of grapevine virus A (GVA, genus Vitivirus) as well as by two viroids (hop stunt viroid [HSVd] and grapevine yellow speckle viroid 1 [GYSVd1]) and four variants of grapevine rupestris stem pitting-associated virus (GRSPaV). Immunogold labelling using gold particles of two different diameters revealed the existence of ‘hybrid’ particles labelled at one end as GLRaV-1, with the rest labelled as GVA. In this work, we suggest that immunogold labelling can provide information about the biology of the viruses, going deeper than just genomic information provided by HTS, from which no recombinant or ‘chimeric’ GLRaV-1/GVA sequences had been identified in the dataset. Our observations suggest an unknown interaction between members of two different viral species that are often encountered together in a single grapevine, highlighting potential consequences in the vector biology and epidemiology of leafroll and rugose-wood diseases.
This work was supported by the Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) and partially supported by the Agence Nationale pour la Recherche, ANR Vinobodies contract: ANR-14-CE19-0018-02. JMH was funded by the “Metagenome” (28000225) project gathering three French professional committees for viticulture (Interprofessional Committee of Champagne Wine, CIVC, Epernay; Interprofessional Office of Burgundy Wines, BIVB, Beaune and Interprofessional Committee of Wines from Alsace, CIVA, Colmar) and Moët & Chandon. The authors acknowledge Jacky Misbach and the greenhouse team for technical support, and Lionel Ley and the members of the experimental unit of INRA-Colmar for the production of plants.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare there are no conflicts of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
This research did not involve human participants or animals.
This research did not involve human participants or animals. All co-authors consent to the publication.
- 1.Beuve M, Hily JM, Alliaume A, Reinbold C, Le Maguet J, Candresse T, Herrbach E, Lemaire O (2018) A complex virome unveiled by deep sequencing analysis of RNAs from a French Pinot Noir grapevine exhibiting strong leafroll symptoms. ArchVirol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-018-3949-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Falk B, Tian T (1999) Transcapsidation interactions and dependent aphid transmission among luteoviruses, and luteovirus-associated RNAs. In: Smith H, Barker H (eds) The Luteoviridae. CAB International, Oxon, pp 125–134Google Scholar
- 5.Harrison BD, Nixon HL (1959) Separation and properties of particles of Tobacco rattle virus with different lengths. Microbiology 21:569–580Google Scholar
- 6.Herrbach E, Alliaume A, Prator CA, Daane KM, Cooper ML, Almeida RPP (2017) Vector transmission of grapevine leafroll-associated viruses. In: Meng B, Martelli GP, Golino DA, Fuchs M (eds) Grapevine viruses: molecular biology, diagnostics and management. Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, pp 483–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Kanakala S, Jyothsna P, Shukla R, Tiwari N, Veer BS, Swarnalatha P, Krishnareddy M, Malathi VG (2013) Asymmetric synergism and heteroencapsidation between two bipartite begomoviruses, tomato leaf curl New Delhi virus and tomato leaf curl Palampur virus. Virus Res 174:126–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Kleczkowski A, Nixon HL (1950) An electron-microscope study of potato virus X in different states of aggregation. Microbiology 4:220–224Google Scholar
- 12.Martelli GP (2014) Grapevine-infecting viruses. J Plant Pathol 96:7–8Google Scholar
- 21.Zorloni A, Prati S, Bianco PA, Belli G (2006) Transmission of Grapevine virus A and Grapevine leafroll-associated virus 3 by Heliococcus bohemicus. Plant Pathol 88:325–328Google Scholar