Plant Viruses Online   

Descriptions and Lists from the VIDE Database

Grapevine fanleaf nepovirus

Index

• Nomenclature
• Host range, transmission and symptoms
• Physical and biochemical properties
• Taxonomy and relationships
• Comments and References

Data collated by G.P. Martelli, 1987; S.A. Holland, 1986.

Nomenclature

Synonyms

grapevine arricciamento virus, grapevine court noué virus, grapevine infectious degeneration virus, grapevine Reisigkrankheit virus, grapevine roncet virus, grapevine urticado virus.

Acronym

GFLV

Strains

Fanleaf strain (Hewitt, 1950b); yellow mosaic strain (Hewitt, 1950a) and Dias (1950); veinbanding strain (Goheen and Hewitt, 1962) and Martelli and Hewitt (1963a).

ICTV decimal code

18.0.3.0.016

Host range and symptoms

Natural host range and symptoms

Symptoms persist and vary seasonally.

Vitis vinifera, V. rupestris and many other Vitis spp. and interspecific hybrids - systemic green or yellow mosaic, ring and line patterns and flecks, leaf and nodal malformation.

Transmission

Transmitted by a vector; a nematode; Xiphinema index (Hewitt et al., 1958) and X. italiae (Cohn et al., 1970). Virus does not require a helper virus for vector transmission; transmitted by mechanical inoculation; transmitted by grafting; not transmitted by contact between plants; transmitted by seed (rarely if ever transmitted to embryos of Vitis vinifera, virus abundant in endosperm of infected viruses but not in embryo. Transmitted by seed in Chenopodium amaranticolor (Dias, 1963), C. quinoa (Brückbauer and Rüdel, 1961a), Glycine max (Cory and Hewitt, 1968); not transmitted by pollen (although found in pollen of Vitis).

Ecology and control

Studies reported by Martelli (1978); Raski et al. (1983); Esmenjavd (1983).

Geographical distribution

Probably distributed worldwide (in all areas where Vitis vinifera and American hybrid rootstocks are grown).

Experimental host range

Several (3-9) families susceptible.

Diagnostically susceptible host species and symptoms

• Vitis spp. - green or yellow systemic mosaic, rings, line patterns and flecks.
• Chenopodium amaranticolor and C. quinoa - systemic mottling and leaf malformation.
• Cucumis sativus, Phaseolus vulgaris cv. Bountiful - systemic chlorotic or necrotic mosaic, mottling, flecking or ringspots. Immune to some strains.
• Gomphrena globosa - systemic chlorotic spots, leaves twisted.
• Nicotiana benthamiana - systemic mottling, leaf malformation, stunting.
• Nicotiana clevelandii - systemic mottling and stunting.

Maintenance and propagation hosts

Chenopodium amaranticolor; C. quinoa; Gomphrena globosa, Phaseolus vulgaris. Good sources for virus purification are C. quinoa, Nicotiana clevelandii, N. benthamiana. G. globosa is good for maintaining cultures.

Assay hosts (Local lesions or Whole plants)

Chenopodium amaranticolor (W); Gomphrena globosa (W); Phaseolus vulgaris cv. Bountiful (W). No satisfactory local lesion hosts are known.

Susceptible host species

• Amaranthus caudatus
• Beta vulgaris
• Chenopodium album
• Chenopodium amaranticolor
• Chenopodium ambrosioides
• Chenopodium capitatum
• Chenopodium foetidum
• Chenopodium foliosum
• Chenopodium hybridum
• Chenopodium murale
• Chenopodium quinoa
• Cucumis sativus
• Cucurbita maxima
• Glycine max
• Gomphrena globosa
• Nicotiana benthamiana
• Nicotiana bigelovii
• Nicotiana clevelandii
• Nicotiana debneyi
• Nicotiana glutinosa
• Nicotiana megalosiphon
• Nicotiana rustica
• Nicotiana tabacum
• Petunia × hybrida
• Phaseolus vulgaris
• Vicia faba
• Vigna unguiculata
• Vitis
• Vitis labrusca
• Vitis rupestris
• Vitis vinifera

Insusceptible host species

• Nicotiana clevelandii
• Nicotiana glutinosa
• Poncirus trifoliata
• Prunus americana × P. salicina
• Prunus armeniaca
• Prunus cerasifera
• Prunus domestica
• Prunus mahaleb
• Prunus persica
• Prunus serrulata
• Rubus idaeus
• Rubus occidentalis

Families containing susceptible hosts

• Amaranthaceae (2/2)
• Chenopodiaceae (10/10)
• Cucurbitaceae (2/2)
• Leguminosae-Papilionoideae (4/4)
• Solanaceae (9/9)
• Vitidaceae (4/4)

Families containing insusceptible hosts

• Rosaceae (9/9)
• Rutaceae (1/1)
• Solanaceae (2/9)

Sources of host-range data

Brückbauer and Rüdel (1961b); Cadman et al. (1960); Dias (1963); Martelli and Hewitt (1963a); Taylor and Hewitt (1964); Vuittenez (1963).

Physical and biochemical properties

Properties of particles in sap

TIP: 60-65 °C. LIV: 15-30 days (at 20ºC). DEP: log₁₀ minus 3-4 (Brückbauer and Rüdel, 1961b; Cadman et al., 1960; Dias, 1963; Taylor and Hewitt, 1964). Leaf sap contains few virions.

Purification method

Dias and Harrison (1963); Martelli and Hewitt (1963b); Taylor and Hewitt (1964).

Particle morphology

Virions isometric; not enveloped; 30 nm in diameter; angular in profile; without a conspicuous capsomere arrangement.

Physical properties

Three sedimenting components in purified preparations; sedimentation coefficient of the fastest 120 S (B); of the other(s) 86 S (M), or 50 S (T). Density 1.49 g cm^-3 in CsCl (B), or 1.41 g cm^-3 in CsCl (M), or 1.31 g cm^-3 in CsCl (T). Isoelectric point pH 4. A₂₆₀/A₂₈₀ ratio 1.67 (B), or 1.58 (M), or 0.73 (T; Quacquarelli et al., 1976).

Biochemical properties

Virions contain 42 % nucleic acid (B), or 30 % nucleic acid (M), or 0 % nucleic acid (T); 58 % protein (B), or 70 % protein (M), or 100 % protein (T).

Genome consists of RNA; single-stranded; linear. Total genome size 11.116 kb. Genome of two parts; largest (or only) genome part the larger 7.342 kb; the 2nd largest 3.774 kb (Quacquarelli et al., 1976). Genomic nucleic acid isolated by Diener and Schneider (1968); Quacquarelli et al. (1972; 1976): single-phase phenol/SDS; freezing and thawing or heating for 90 secs at 66ºC. Infectivity retained when deproteinised with phenol or detergent.

NCBI sequence data (Entrez search)

Sequence database accession code(s)

• D00915 Em(40)_vi:GFLRNA1 Gb(84)_vi:GFLRNA1 Grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV) RNA1 for polyprotein. 4/94 7,342bp.
• S38553 Em(40)_vi:S38553 Gb(84)_vi:S38553 RNA1=VPg (253K polyprotein) grapevine fanleaf nepovirus, Genomic RNA, 84 nt. 1/94 84bp.
• X16907 Em(40)_vi:NEGFLVR2 Gb(84)_vi:NEGFLVR2 Grapevine Fanleaf virus (GFLV-F13) RNA2 encoding capsid protein. 9/93 3,774bp.
• X60775 Em(40)_vi:GVFVCP Gb(84)_vi:GVFVCP Grapevine fanleaf virus genomic RNA for capsid protein. 10/91 2,305bp.
• U11768 Em(43)_vi:Gf11768 Gb(89)_vi:U11768 Grapevine fanleaf virus coat protein gene, partial cds. 10/94 1,515bp.
• U11770 Em(43)_vi:Gf770 Gb(89)_vi:Gfu11770 Grapevine fanleaf virus RNA2, deletion mutant. 10/94 501bp.

Features of proteins

Virion protein(s) one; M_r 54000 (Quacquarelli et al., 1976). Method of preparation: Agrawal and Tremaine (1972): boil in presence of 1% SDS, 1% 2-mercaptoethanol and 4 M urea.

Replication

Replication does not depend on a helper virus (Morris-Krsinich et al., 1983).

Cytopathology

Virions found in roots, mesophyll and vascular parenchyma in herbaceous hosts or grapevines (Gerola et al., 1969; Saric and Wrischer, 1975; Kalasjan et al., 1979); in cytoplasm, or in nuclei (where empty capsids may accumulate (Savina et al., 1985)). Inclusions present in infected cells; are membranous bodies and unusual in shape (crystalline aggregates in the cytoplasm and tubules); they contain virions. Other cellular changes: leaf deformations that are open marginal, petiolar sinuses and prominent marginal teeth. Canes have unevenly spaced or double nodes and are flat. Cell walls have outgrowths (Saric and Wrischer, 1975; Kalasjan et al., 1979) and trabeculae in phloem and xylem tissues (Gifford et al., 1956).

Taxonomy and relationships

Nepovirus: Comoviridae

Virus(es) with serologically related virions

Different strains of grapevine fanleaf virus are antigenically close (Cadman et al., 1960; Barabino, 1963; Dias and Harrison, 1963; Martelli and Hewitt, 1963b; Taylor and Hewitt, 1964), and all are distantly related to arabis mosaic virus.

Virus(es) with serologically unrelated virions

Tomato ringspot and tobacco ringspot viruses.

Best tests for diagnosis

Serology must be used to identify fanleaf virus. Seedlings or rooted cuttings of V. vinifera and V. rupestris are good bait plants in studies with nematode vectors.

Comments and References

References

• Agrawal, H.D. and Tremaine, J.H. (1972). Virology 47: 8.
• Barabino, G. (1963). Hort. Res. 3: 27.
• Bercks, R. (1968). Weinb. Kell. 14: 151.
• Bovey, R., Brugger, J.J. and Gugerli, P. (1982). Proc. 7th Meeting ICVG, Niagara Falls 1980, p. 251.
• Brückbauer, H. and Rüdel, M. (1961a). Wein-Wiss. 16: 177.
• Brückbauer, H. and Rüdel, M. (1961b). Wein-Wiss. 16: 197.
• Cadman, C.H., Dias, H.F. and Harrison, B.D. (1960). Nature, Lond. 187: 577.
• Cohn, E., Tanne, E. and Nitzany, F.E. (1970). Phytopathology 60: 181.
• Cory, L. and Hewitt, W.B. (1968). Phytopathology 58: 1316.
• Dias, H.F. (1963). Ann. appl. Biol. 51: 85.
• Dias, H.F. and Harrison, B.D. (1963). Ann. appl. Biol. 51: 97.
• Diener, T.O. and Schneider, I.R. (1968). Arch. Biochim. Biophys. 124: 401.
• Esmenjavd, D. (1983). Prog. Agric. Viticole 100: 514.
• Gerola, F.M., Bassi, M. and Belli, G. (1971). G. Bot. Ital. 103: 271.
• Gifford, E.M., Hewitt, W.B., Graham, A.D. and Lamoureux, C.H. (1956). Bull. Calif. Dep. Agric. 45: 268.
• Goheen, A.C. and Hewitt, W.B. (1962). Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 13: 73.
• Hewitt, W.B. (1950a). Bull. Calif. Dep. Agric. 39: 6.
• Hewitt, W.B. (1950b). Bull. Calif. Dep. Agric. 39: 62.
• Hewitt, W.B., Martelli, G., Dias, H.F. and Taylor, R.H. (1970). CMI/AAB Descr. Pl. Viruses No. 28, 4 pp.
• Kalasjan, J.A., Litvak, L.A. and Marinesku, V. (1979). Arch. Phytopath. Pflschutz 6: 373.
• Martelli, G.P. (1978). Nematol. Medit. 6: 1.
• Martelli, G.P. and Hewitt, W.B. (1963a). Phytopathol. Medit. 2: 275.
• Martelli, G.P. and Hewitt, W.B. (1963b). Phytopathol. Medit. 2: 285.
• Morris-Krsinich, B.A.M., Foster, R.L.S. and Mossop, D.W. (1983). Virology 130: 523.
• Quacquarelli, A., Piazzolla, P. and Vovlas, C. (1972). J. gen. Virol. 17: 147.
• Quacquarelli, A., Gallitelli, D., Savino, V., and Martelli, G.P. (1976). J. gen. Virol. 32: 349.
• Raski, D.J., Goheen, A.C., Lider, L.A. and Meredith, C.P. (1983). Plant Dis. 67: 335.
• Rathay, E. (1883). Önol. Lehranstalt Klosterneuburg, 3.
• Ritzenhaler, C., Viry, M., Pinck, M., Margis, R., Fuchs, M. and Pinck, L. (1991). J. gen. Virol. 172: 2357.
• Russo, M. (1985). Phytopathol. Medit. 24: 144.
• Russo, M., Martelli, G.P. and Savino, V. (1982). Proc. 7th Meeting ICVG, Niagara Falls 1980, p. 251.
• Saric, A. and Wrischer, M. (1975). Phytopath. Z. 84: 97.
• Savino, V., Cherif, C. and Martelli, G.P. (1985). Phytopathol. Medit. 24: 29.
• Taylor, R.H. and Hewitt, W.B. (1964). Aust. J. agric. Res. 15: 571.
• Vuittenez, A. (1963). C. r. hebd. Seanc. Acad. Agric. Fr. 49: 795.

Cite this publication as: Brunt, A.A., Crabtree, K., Dallwitz, M.J., Gibbs, A.J., Watson, L. and Zurcher, E.J. (eds.) (1996 onwards). `Plant Viruses Online: Descriptions and Lists from the VIDE Database. Version: 20^th August 1996.' URL http://biology.anu.edu.au/Groups/MES/vide/

Dallwitz (1980) and Dallwitz, Paine and Zurcher (1993) should also be cited.