Link to home

Recent Emergence of the Mild Strain of Tomato yellow leaf curl virus as a Cause of Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Disease of Processing Tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicon) in the Dominican Republic

November 2014 , Volume 98 , Number  11
Pages  1,592.2 - 1,592.2

T. Kon and T. Melgarejo, Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, Davis 95616; A. Almanzar, Transagricola, S. A. Av. Duarte 269 Navarette, Santiago, Dominican Republic Apartado 713; and R. L. Gilbertson, Department of Plant Pathology, University of California, Davis 95616



Go to article:
Accepted for publication 12 July 2014.

In the early 1990s, the monopartite begomovirus Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) was introduced into the Dominican Republic (DO), and molecular characterization revealed it was an isolate of TYLCV-Israel (TYLCV-IL[DO]) (3,5). In 2006, a study of the variability of TYLCV in DO revealed that TYLCV-IL[DO] was associated with all samples of tomato yellow leaf curl (TYLC) tested and, thus, that the virus had been genetically stable for >15 years (2). However, in 2010 and 2011, 2 of 10 and 11 of 18 samples of TYLC, respectively, were negative for TYLCV infection based upon PCR with the TYLCV-specific primer pair, 2560v (5′-GAGAACAATTGGGATATG-3′)/1480c (5′-AATCATGGATTCACGCAC-3′), which directs the amplification of a ~1.7 kb fragment. In 2011, two such samples from the Azua Valley were tested by PCR with the 1470v (5′-AGTGATGAGTTCCCCTGTGC-3′)/UPC2 primer pair (1), and sequence analysis of the ~0.4 kb fragment amplified from both samples revealed infection with the mild strain of TYLCV (TYLCV-Mld). A primer specific for TYLCV-Mld was designed (2070v, 5′-AAACGGAGAAATATATAAGGAGCC-3′), and PCR with the 2070v/1480c primer pair directed the amplification of the expected ~2.1 kb fragment from all 11 TYLC samples collected in 2011 that were PCR-negative for TYLCV-IL[DO] infection. Sequence analyses confirmed these were TYLCV-Mld fragments. The complete TYLCV-Mld genome was amplified from two samples from the Azua Valley with Templiphi, the amplified DNA products digested with Sal I, and the resulting ~2.8 kb fragments ligated into Sal I-digested pGEM-11. The complete sequences of these isolates were 2,791 nt and 99% identical to each other and 98% identical to sequences of TYLCV-Mld isolates. The TYLCV-Mld isolates from the DO were designated TYLCV-Mld:DO:TY5:01:2011 (KJ913682) and TYLCV-Mld:DO:TY5:02:2011 (KJ913683). A multimeric clone of TYLCV-Mld:DO:TY5:01:2011 was generated in the binary vector pCAMBIA1300 by cloning a 2.2 kb Sal I-EcoRI fragment containing the intergenic region to generate a 0.8-mer (pCTYMld0.8), and then the full-length Sal I fragment was cloned into the Sal I site of pCTYMld0.8 to generate a 1.8-mer (pCTYMldDO-01-1.8). Tomato plants agroinoculated with Agrobacterium tumefaciens carrying pCTYMldDO-01-1.8 developed severe TYLC disease symptoms 10 to 14 days after inoculation, whereas plants inoculated with a strain carrying the empty vector did not develop symptoms. Samples of processing tomatoes with TYLC were collected in 2012 to 2014 in the DO and tested for TYLCV-IL[DO] and TYLCV-Mld by PCR with the 2560v/1480c and 2070v/1480c primers pairs, respectively; these samples had infections of 93% (13/14), 86% (18/21), and 61% (11/18) with TYLCV-Mld; 29% (4/14), 19% (4/21), and 56% (10/18) with TYLCV-IL[DO]; and 21% (3/14), 5% (1/21), and 28% (5/18) with both viruses, respectively. These results reveal that there has been a striking population shift in the begomovirus causing TYLC in the DO, with TYLCV-Mld becoming predominant. This may reflect selection pressure(s) favoring a small pre-existing population of TYLCV-Mld, such as new tomato varieties, or a recent introduction event, such as that described in Venezuela (4).

References: (1) R. W. Briddon and P. G. Markham. Mol. Biotechnol. 1:202, 1994. (2) R. L. Gilbertson et al. Page 279 in: Tomato yellow leaf curl virus disease. Springer, 2007. (3) M. K. Nahkla et al. Plant Dis. 78:926, 1994. (4) G. Romay et al. Australasian Plant Dis. Notes, in press, 2014. (5) R. Salati et al. Phytopathology 92:487, 2002.



Copyright © 2014 The American Phytopathological Society