Virus Genes

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 120–123 | Cite as

Sequencing of the Tamus red mosaic virus genome: further evidence that it is a distinct species of the genus Potexvirus

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

In 1993, a virus causing red mosaic and leaf distortion has been isolated from black bryony (Tamus communis) in Italy. Based on particle properties and serology, the virus was assigned to the genus Potexvirus and named Tamus red mosaic virus (TRMV), pending a genome sequence. The original Italian TRMV isolate was submitted to the DSMZ plant virus collection (PV-0397). To confirm the taxonomic status of the virus, the entire genome sequence was determined comprising 6,495 nucleotides excluding the poly(A)-tail. Five putative open reading frames (ORFs) in an arrangement typical for potexviruses were predicted. TRMV is closely related to but distinct from Clover yellow mosaic virus and Allium virus X. In addition to previous morphological and serological characterization, the results presented in this study further reinforce the classification of TRMV as a distinct virus species of the genus Potexvirus.

Keywords

TRMV Tamus red mosaic virus Potexvirus Tamus communis 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to P. Caciagli and O. Lovisolo (Instituto di Fitovirologia Applicata, Torino, Italy) for providing the TRMV isolate in 1993, and to the Department of Genome Analysis of the Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research (Braunschweig) for providing an excellent sequencing service.

References

  1. 1.
    M.J. Adams, in Virus Taxonomy, ed. by C.M. Fauquet, M.A. Mayo, J. Maniloff, U. Desselberger, L.A. Ball (Elsevier/Academic Press, London, 2005), pp. 1089–1124Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D.L. Beck, P.J. Guilford, D.M. Voot, M.T. Andersen, R.L. Forster, Virology 183, 695–702 (1991)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Caciagli, G. Boccardo, V. Lisa, O. Lovisolo, Plant. Pathol. 42, 294–301 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Froussard, Nucleic Acids Res. 20, 2900 (1992)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    P.J. Guilford, D.L. Beck, R.L.S. Forster, Virology 182, 61–67 (1991)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    E.D. Miller, C.A. Plante, K.H. Kim, J.M. Brown, C. Hemenway, J. Mol. Biol. 284, 591–608 (1998)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    K. Tamura, D. Peterson, N. Peterson, G. Stecher, M. Nei, S. Kumar, Mol. Biol. Evol. (2011). doi: 10.1093/molbev/msr121
  8. 8.
    J.R. Thompson, W. Jelkmann, Arch. Virol. 149, 1897–1909 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R.A. Valverde, J.A. Dodds, J.A. Heick, Phytopathology 76, 459–465 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    H.J. Vetten, D.E. Lesemann, D.J. Allen, Plant. Pathol. 36, 492–498 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    K.A. White, J.B. Bancroft, G.A. Mackie, Virology 189, 817–820 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Plant Virus DepartmentDSMZBraunschweigGermany

Personalised recommendations