last modified April 04. 2016
by Henry Kuska
Retired 1993, Associate Professor, Department of Chemistry, University of Akron
Ph.D., Physical Chemistry
This page gives the information that I have collected from my own literature searches and from others posting on the internet. Please let me know if you feel anything is not clear or is not addressed at all as I am continually updating/modifying it as I get feedback.
Bold print in quotes does not mean that the bold print appeared in the original; the bold print was added by me (H. Kuska) for emphasis. Information in color indicates that a link is present for further information.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the August 2012 meeting of the American Phytopathological Society. a paper was presented with the title:
"Identification, transmission, and genomic characterization of a novel member of the Caulimoviridae causing a yellow vein disease of cultured rose".
The authors were: D. MOLLOV (1), B. Lockhart (1), D. Zlesak (2)
(1) University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, U.S.A.; (2) University of Wisconsin-River Falls, River Falls, WI, U.S.A.
The virus was found in the cultivar Dr. Merkeley in Minnesota and in the cultivars Madame Pierre Oget, Mozart, Prosperity, and Schneezwerg in New York. It also occurred in Rosa rugosa.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmission
The abstract also states that: "The virus was transmitted by grafting to healthy plants of the variety George Vancouver ...... The virus was not transmitted by mechanical inoculation or by Macrosiphum euphorbiae."
http://www.apsnet.org/meetings/Documents/2012_Meeting_Abstracts/aps12abP99.htm
H.Kuska comment: Macrosiphum euphorbiae is commonly called the potato aphid but it does attack roses. I will comment later in this post about the evidence against aphid transmission.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following "follow up" article is mainly of interest to plant virologists:
Title: Complete nucleotide sequence of rose yellow vein virus, a member of the family Caulimoviridae having a novel genome organization
Authors: Dimitre Mollov(1), Ben Lockhart(1), David C. Zlesak(2), and Neil Olszewski(3)
Authors affiliation:
(1) Department of Plant Pathology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, U.S.A.; (2) University of Wisconsin-River Falls, River Falls, WI, U.S.A. and (3) Department of Plant Biology, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, U.S.A.
Published in: Archives of Virology,volume 158, Issue 4, pp 877-880, (2013).
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00705-012-1547-9#page-1
This article reports a 33% sequence identity with soybean chlorotic mottle virus (SbCMV) )(H. Kuska comment: not thought to be an aphid transmitted virus). 29% sequence identity with cassava vein mosaic virus (CsVMV) (H. Kuska comment: natural vector not known), and a 37% sequence identity with strawberry vein banding virus (SVBV) (H. Kuska comment: an aphid transmitted virus).
H. Kuska comment: I will discuss the possibility of aphid transmission later in this post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2013, the following paper appeared:
Title: "First Report of Rose yellow vein virus in Rosa sp. in New Zealand".
Authors: Z. Perez-Egusquiza, L. W. Liefting, and L. I. Ward.
Authors affiliation: Plant Health and Environment Laboratory, Ministry for Primary Industries, P.O. Box 2095, Auckland 1140, New Zealand
Published in: Plant Disease, volume 97, number 8, page 1122, (2013).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-10-12-0981-PDN
They tested 10 different rose cultivars that exhibited virus-like symptoms for a number of known rose viruses. RYVV was found in two of the cultivars, Leda and Zephhinine Drouhin.
The above article included a supplemental link to a picture of an infected group of leaves, see:
http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/suppl/10.1094/PDIS-10-12-0981-PDN
Although the caption in the above link says: "‘Leda’ rose infected with Rose yellow vein virus.", the article states: "Symptoms observed in the ‘Leda’ sample infected with PNRSV and RYVV (vein yellowing and chlorotic mottle in the apex of leaves) were not typical of PNRSV, so they may be caused by RYVV."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also in 2013, the New Zealand group published a more complete paper:
Title "A survey of viruses infecting Rosa Spp. in New Zealand"
Authors: E. J. M. Milleza, L. I. Ward, C. Delmiglio, J. Z. Tang, S. Veerakone, and Z. Perez-Egusquiza
Authors affiliation: Plant Health and Environment Laboratory, Ministry for Primary Industries, P.O. Box 2095, Auckland, 1140, New Zealand
Published in: Australasian Plant Pathology, volume 42, issue 3 , pages 313-320 , (2013).
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13313-012-0191-x
The full paper is available to members of ResearchGate (signup is free) at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257801675_A_survey_of_viruses_infecting_Rosa_spp_in_New_Zealand
They tested 89 rose bushes. The majority were from bushes that had virus-like symptoms, but a few were from bushes with no symptoms. They used RT-PCR (a known very sensitive technique) to test for the presence of 17 different viruses. 10% were infected with RYVV virus. (As a comparison, PNRSV, a common rose virus in the U.S. was found in 22% of the roses.),
They tested different regions of the country. The following quote is their summary of the distribution of RYVV: "RYVV was present in the Auckland region, Canterbury, Hawkes Bay, and Waikato, but was only found in public gardens. RYVV was not detected in samples from the Coromandel, Manawatu, Marlborough, or Taupo."
This article includes a picture of RYVV infected leaves (Figure 4). The caption is:
"Vein clearing symptoms on a rose sample infected with RYVV"
Regarding transmission they state:
"RYVV is transmissible by grafting, but not by aphid or mechanical transmission (Mollov et al. 2009, 2012)."
H. Kuska comment: Please consider the following when evaluating their "not by aphid" statement:
To illustrate that I feel that testing only one species of aphid for virus transmission of a particular virus is not sufficient to rule out that other species of aphids could be vectors, please read the following which I took from an aphid transmission study of Strawberry vein banding virus (SVBV) on strawberries.
"The following aphids are cited as vectors: Acyrthosiphon pelargonii, Amphorophora rubi, Aphis idaei, A. rubifolii, Aulacorthum solani, Chaetosiphon fragaefolii, C. jacobi, C. tetrarhodum, C. thomasi, Macrosiphum rosae, Myzus ascalonicus, M. ornatus,, M. persicae . Of these species, Chaetosiphon spp. are the most efficient vectors in glasshouse experiments, although other genera are probably important vectors when they occur in large numbers and frequently move from plant to plant. Aphids can acquire and transmit the virus in 30-120 min, but persistence in the vector is short, usually less than 8 h (semipersistent type). There are differences in the efficiency of clonal lines of aphids, and evidence that some species will transmit only certain strains of SVBV. Aphis gossypii, A. fabae, Aulacorthum solani and Macrosiphum euphorbiae failed to transmit the virus in a limited number of trials." The above quote is taken from the European Union Data Sheet on Quarantine Pests, Strawberry vein banding caulimovirus https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.eppo.int/QUARANTINE/virus/Strawberry_vein_banding_virus/SVBV00_ds.pdf&sa=U&ei=gja0VITaL426uASJpoHYBw&ved=0CAUQFjAA&client=internal-uds-cse&usg=AFQjCNFkRUWm12nDubxXsEsn-olPTkjo4w
H. Kuska comment: It appears unfortunate that the rose investigators selected as their test aphid only one of the species of aphids (and that it was one that did not transmit the somewhat similar virus SVBV).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional pictures of infected leaves
Fortunately, pictures of infected leaves were included in a more recent paper (Figures 1A, 1B, and 1C ): Mollov , D., Lockhart, B. and Zlesak, D.C. SYMPTOMS, TRANSMISSION, AND DETECTION OF FOUR NEW ROSE VIRUSES. Acta Hort. (ISHS) 1064: pages 303-310, (2015)
http://www.actahort.org/books/1064/1064_37.htm
The captions for the pictures are:
Figure 1A: "Vein-yellowing and chlorosis naturally occurring in cv. Dr. Merkeley"
Figure 1B: "Vein-yellowing after graft inoculation of cv. George Vancouver"
Figure 1C: "Leaf distortion naturally occurring in Rose rugosa rubra"
Pictures of infected leaves are also available in the free Ph.D. thesis of Dimitre Mollow, page 18
http://hdl.handle.net/11299/171458
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerning whether the virus is a temperature sensitive virus.
Since this virus is reported to show symptoms throughout the season, it appears that it is not a temperature sensitive virus.
==================================================
My other rose virus sites can be reached from the following index page:
https://sites.google.com/site/rosevirusindexpage/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------