1887

Abstract

Summary

The biological, physical and chemical properties of New Zealand isolates of cocksfoot mottle (CfMV) and cynosurus mottle (CyMV) viruses were compared. The two viruses could be distinguished by host range differences and serological properties but their physical and chemical properties were similar. The virus particles differed in their buoyant density in CsCl (1.386 g/ml for CfMV; 1.379 g/ml for CyMV) and in their banding behaviour in CsSO gradients (CfMV formed two bands at pH 5 while CyMV formed only one). Furthermore, CyMV was degraded by low concentrations of SDS at pH 7, while CfMV was resistant except in the presence of EDTA. The viral RNAs were comparable in mol. wt. but differed in their amount of secondary structure and sedimentation values. Molecular hybridization studies using H-labelled complementary DNA (cDNA) probes indicated that the RNA genomes of the two viruses had between about 5% and 8% of their base sequences in common. Both viruses were detected in the nuclei of infected cells. However, CfMV, unlike CyMV, formed crystalline arrays in the cytoplasm. It is concluded that although New Zealand isolates of CyMV and CfMV share a number of similar properties they are distinct viruses.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/0022-1317-55-1-63
1981-07-01
2022-01-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jgv/55/1/JV0550010063.html?itemId=/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/0022-1317-55-1-63&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Aapola A. I. E., Rochow W. F. 1971; Relationships among three isolates of barley yellow dwarf virus. Virology 46:127–141
    [Google Scholar]
  2. A’Brook J. 1972; Lolium mottle virus. Plant Pathology 21:118–120
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Catherall P. L., Andrews P. A., Chamberlain J. A. 1977; Host ranges of cocksfoot mottle and cynosurus mottle viruses. Annals of Applied Biology 87:233–235
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chamberlain J. A., Catherall P. L. 1976; Electronmicroscopy of some grasses and cereals infected with cocksfoot mottle, phleum mottle and cocksfoot mild mosaic viruses. Journal of General Virology 30:41–50
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Derrick K. S., Brlansky R. H. 1976; Assay for viruses and mycoplasma using serologically specific electron microscopy. Phytopathology 66:815–820
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Gill C. C., Chong J. 1979; Cytopathological evidence for the division of barley yellow dwarf virus isolates into two sub-groups. Virology 95:59–69
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Gonda T. J., Symons R. H. 1978; The use of hybridization analysis with complementary DNA to determine the RNA sequence homology between strains of plant viruses. Its application to several strains of cucumoviruses. Virology 88:361–370
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Gould A. R., Symons R. H. 1977; Determination of the sequence homology between the four RNA species of cucumber mosaic virus by hybridization analysis with complementary DNA. Nucleic Acids Research 4:3787–3802
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Harrison B. D., Murant A. F. 1977; Nepovirus Group. Commonwealth Mycological Institute/Association of Applied Biologists Descriptions of Plant Viruses No 185
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hull R. 1977a; The grouping of small spherical plant viruses with single RNA components. Journal of General Virology 36:289–296
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hull R. 1977b; The stabilization of the particles of turnip rosette virus and of other members of the southern bean mosaic virus group. Virology 79:58–66
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Hull R. 1977c; The banding behaviour of the viruses of southern bean mosaic virus group in gradients of cesium sulphate. Virology 79:50–57
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Huth W., Paul H. L. 1977; Two viruses isolated from Cynosurus cristatus compared with lolium mottle and cocksfoot mottle viruses. Annales de Phytopathologie 9:293–297
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Mohamed N. A. 1978a; Cynosurus mottle virus, a virus affecting grasses in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 21:709–714
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Mohamed N. A. 1978b; Physical and chemical properties of cynosurus mottle virus. Journal of General Virology 40:379–389
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Mohamed N. A. 1980a; Cocksfoot mottle virus in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal ofAgricultural Research 23:273–275
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Mohamed N. A. 1980b; An ultrastructural study of three grasses naturally infected with cynosurus mottle virus. Phytopathologische Zeitschrift (in press)
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Mossop D. W., Francki R. I. B. 1979; Comparative studies on two satellite RNAs of cucumber mosaic virus. Virology 95:395–404
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Myers J. C., Spiegelman S. 1978; Sodium pyrophosphate inhibition of RNA.DNA hybrid degradation by reverse transcriptase. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 75:5329–5333
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Paul H. L., Querfurth G., Huth W. 1980; Serological studies on the relationships of some isometric viruses of Gramineae. Journal of General Virology 47:67–77
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Reunders L., Sloof P., Sival J., Borst P. 1973; Gel electrophoresis of RNA under denaturing conditions. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 324:320–333
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Serjeant E. P. 1967; Some properties of cocksfoot mottle virus. Annals of Applied Biology 59:31–38
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Taylor J. M., Illmensee R., Summers J. 1976; Efficient transcription of RNA into DNA by avian sarcoma virus polymerase. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 442:324–330
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/0022-1317-55-1-63
Loading
/content/journal/jgv/10.1099/0022-1317-55-1-63
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited this month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error