Evaluation of capsicum accessions for resistance to potato virus Y, tobacco etch and pepper mottle viruses and their potential to differentiate strains of these viruses : final report

48 Pages·1997·6.5 MB·English

by  Valverde, Rodrigo Alberto

Historic, Archive Document
Do not assume content reflects current
scientific knowledge, policies, or practices.

Eware aPsn eteeeei e

t
EVALUATION OF CAPSICUM ACCESSIONS FOR RESISTANCE TO
POTATO VIRUS Y, TOBACCO ETCH AND PEPPER MOTTLE VIRUSES
AND THEIR POTENTIAL TO DIFFERENTIATE STRAINS OF THESE
VIRUSES
Rodrigo A. Valverde, Dept. of Plant Pathology and Crop Physiology,
Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Louisiana State Universi
LTuee |
Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 eats AGnAL Leh \
USDA-ARS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT No. 58-6659-4-008
FINAL REPORT
The main objective of the proposal was to screen pepper genotypes
against many isolates of three different viruses: tobacco etch virus CGREV)):
pepper mottle virus (PepMoV), and potato virus Y (PVY) that infect pepper.
All experiments were conducted at Louisiana State University in Baton
Rouge
Resistance of Capsicumspp. Genotypes to Tobacco Etch
Potyvirus Isolates
Tobacco etch potyvirus is one of the most damaging viruses affecting
peppers (Capsicum spp.) in the United States. Low disease incidence has
been observed in TEV-resistant peppers. Availability of sources of
resistance is necessary for breeders trying to produce cultivars which
are both virus-resistant and horticulturally acceptable. The goal of this
research was to evaluate the reactions of Capsicum genotypes and
cultivars, shown previously to be resistant to one or more TEV isolates,
‘to a range of TEV isolates from different locations.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Thirty-six TEV isolates and 36 pepper genotypes were available for
testing. In order to obtain maximum information from the isolates and
genotypes without inoculating in all possible combinations, three
consecutive experiments were carried out.
Experiment 1. Thirty-six field isolates of TEV from different
geographic locations that had been identified by serology and host range
were used. Ten isolates were from Louisiana, seven from the Dominican
7” ha) yaeoe "a
oR, ‘ a* F of \ apu oarll eie s bi Lateay i a|,y neW ee ls v '
, «¢) c-hB os at ry, PiFy Tae ap ; ‘
cP.
44 AGED: ou FO we ih
. * A ’ ’ ’y ; : y ? u:f R : 7 ’ ‘ yef
t
be es
- a, ‘ . ‘y ts '
b . .
. 7 ~~
f diy bsfe
J
é 4 hing
i
v A
ty
| 7 . : : i
ay
: ~
=" |
"sh
‘
‘
, ‘ . i ; ? 7
, ae
¢
rd )
oe — ) vwe e , iMAsp j otogar e
ie
,,
~~: ? Atl" 4 (3 , 7 roy.e : " rfes
§ , a. e
‘i A fatat e aA e4
i g4 ale et Ue
2
Republic, seven from Mexico, five from California, three from Florida, two
from Honduras, one from Venezuela, and one from Colombia. Twelve
pepper genotypes (Table 1), previously reported to be resistant to one or
more isolates of TEV, plus Yolo Wonder as susceptible control, were
selected to be evaluated for their response to inoculation by each of the
36 isolates. The purpose of Experiment 1 was to select representative or
unusual virus isolates from the 36 total used, based on their reaction to
the 13 pepper genotypes. Sixteen plants were inoculated for each TEV
isolate-pepper line or cultivar combination. In separate flats, 16
noninoculated plants of each pepper were maintained as negative
controls.
Symptom evaluation. Symptoms were evaluated 3 wk after
inoculation. Presence of TEV in selected inoculated pepper genotypes with
mild or no symptoms was tested for by direct double antibody sandwich
ELISA, using commercial kits.
Experiment 2. Twenty-three pepper (Table 1) genotypes reported to
be resistant to some potyvirus isolates were evaluated (along with Yolo
Wonder as the susceptible control) for their reactions to 10 isolates of
TEV selected from Experiment 1. Selected isolates and place of origin
were TEV-401 (California), TEV-CAY-90 (Louisiana), TEV-MEX-21
(Mexico), TEV-C1 (Louisiana), TEV-TX-M (Mexico), TEV-VIL (California),
TEV-DR93-28 (Dominican Republic), TEV-LMS-M (Mexico), TEV-H93-5
(Honduras), and TEV-V92-4 (Venezuela). Isolates were selected because
they represented different levels or patterns of virulence or different
geographic origins. Using these 10 isolates permitted comparison of the
reactions of the 13 pepper genotypes of Experiment 1 with the reactions
of the 24 pepper genotypes of Experiment 2. Therefore, Experiment 2
served to group similar pepper genotypes and identify unusual pepper
genotypes from Experiments 1 and 2. Sixteen pepper plants from each
genotype were mechanically inoculated with each isolate of TEV as
described in Experiment 1. Test plants were evaluated 3 wk after
inoculation for symptom development, as described previously. As in
Experiment 1, selected symptomless, or mild-symptomed inoculated
pepper genotypes were tested by ELISA.
Experiment 3. Ten pepper genotypes (Table 1) that showed potential
as sources of resistance to TEV isolates were selected from Experiments
1 and 2. These genotypes all had resistance to a relatively large number
of isolates in Experiment 1 or 2. Twelve pepper genotypes were
Py ae (
_ y ; Dae : sii het
_
ows thot mo omni) anole fen aa ainsi 8|
aviaewl weil yor 400 Soe \elgumenV-
9%0 0) Insvzies ad of bey weet VlP yGhvG hy nai ade)
saw lone SH IQSIAL 2 28 vabncW obey wh ‘i
of to doee yd coltslosont GF aargaien was 2Ors e
a ev
1 sviteIncemga) Jasioe oF ew f IRGRTINGC e440 a20cy16g s
ar soiiassr edt no beeed basw ite SC ety anal aon
=) noes 70) bsisiuson sve 2insig neste 2962 One HE sr |
of ,2isn simegqee mi nolenidinios evi Ww oni 1, 1
SViTsOen és befis¢nisen ew Wadeq Aon a Say
. iiss,
istic Jw © haieviive- sey aE novisnleve Mop
iw esqyjensg iqqse boteluioen! heyogise ni VET to sanBeerae
foiwbnse yvooding oiiyes joadb vo rot betes? gow noe
2)i4 lei NTgeG, Bie
6) bosioge esqyiones (f sldaT) veqaqey seuit-ws newT" 8 ane
MOY fiw HIOs) Oetavleve Siew eafalnel eitivyTod ernie Oo? ‘a
10 esiateei OF oF encodes Hori? 10F Go\ wnos srt Gsszue ch he
nigno To svsiq Sop eoteloel befnaide .7 Inamheak meats
(S-KGM-V3T Annsi2ivod) O8-YADV3IT (almond) 0 i it
dgimotitsd) JIV-V3T ,(osixeM) MXT-V37_ (sagteisol) TeV: (oa
eb CH iT (o9b¢aM) M-2MIJ-73T Gfeiiduasl nesinkeet ee
gzusoed beyagiee anew e2stelodl (i auseneV) MSEV-WS7 Bae
mash 44°93 ogy io emstisa 10 zeval insist bei
it Io noehequas bering esseio2) OF seers pole 2olghe Sam
eitoesy ari’ ie i 2A omineax lo 2eqvionsp wags Ef ons % ey
S jrsmihaqed evciesiT .S tnemineqn’ To ssqyiorsp Weegee
22
w?wqqeq tsueunU ylithebi bos 2aqylesnsp \sqqad tims é pe
fij6a men etasiqg reggae nsejaid...S bee § alnernheqxdr r
28 VAT. ig stelnel dose (iw bagshasont; viiaoinsrtoaen
‘ole tw € borsuleve srvow Bingig tagT .? Inamb qa
ni 24 .Wiewcivelq bediioeab 26 smemiquiaved: ypirekes
- bBisiuoon! homascire-bitty 10 pomscine Bs
Tinta Bed baszar syow
isithasoq bewore yar? (t aldatye c
einomheaxd wot baioslae ame, hi | r on al
jeder epial neuen) & ont ant
inoculated 3 wk after planting with the 10 TEV isolates used in
Experiment 2. Tabasco and Yolo Wonder were used as susceptible controls.
Test plants were evaluated for symptom expression 3 wk after
inoculation.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Experiment 1. The reactions of 13 pepper genotypes to 36 TEV
isolates are shown in Table 2. Pepper genotypes Yolo Wonder (susceptible
control) and Casca Dura were susceptible to all 36 TEV isolates. Yolo Y, a
PVY-resistant genotype, was resistant (symptomless) to only one isolate.
ELISA tests of Yolo Y plants inoculated with that isolate revealed the
presence of TEV (data not shown). The Avelar genotype used was
Symptomless when inoculated with only eight of 36 isolates. It is possible
that this particular accession of Avelar, obtained in 1975, is less
resistant than other accessions. In Experiment 1, pepper genotypes PI
152225, Delray Bell, Greenleaf Tabasco, Agronomico 10C-5, and Tabasco-
Type Mexico 88 were resistant to more than half of the TEV isolates
tested.
Experiment 2. Reactions of 24 pepper genotypes to 10 TEV isolates
are shown in Table 3. Peppers VR4 and Jaloro were resistant to nine of 10
TEV isolates. Pepper genotype LP-1 was resistant to eight of 10 isolates
of TEV. Six of 24 tested pepper genotypes [Yolo Wonder (susceptible
control), Casca Dura, ELS-2-1, S-20-1, Tam Veracruz, and Tam Mild
Jalapefio] were susceptible to all 10 TEV isolates.
Experiment 3. Tabasco and Yolo Wonder (susceptible controls) were
susceptible to all TEV isolates tested. In contrast, Jaloro, VR4, Delray
Bell, and Agronomico 10C-5 were resistant to many TEV isolates tested.
Table 4 shows the symptoms of five of the 10 TEV isolates inoculated to
12 pepper genotypes. These five isolates were chosen for Table 5 to
illustrate the contrasts among some of the isolates used in Experiment 3.
All five isolates of TEV induced wilting in Tabasco. Isolate 401 induced
symptoms on all the pepper genotypes while V92-4 did not induce
symptoms on eight of 12 pepper genotypes. Isolates LMS-M and H93-5 gave
nearly opposite reactions in the resistant pepper genotypes of Experiment
3. LMS-M induced symptoms, generally severe, in all genotypes except
Greenleaf Tabasco, Pl 159236, and PI 152225. Isolate H93-5 induced
symptoms in Greenleaf Tabasco, Pl 159236, and PI 152225 but not in the
other resistant genotypes. Isolate LMS-M was unable to overcome the C.
o “
| _ : a :
ssay toistunh VOT Gr shy iw orttesty wots aeP eg so
ange 22 boa oew tebaaW oleY bosa fore $3
| riveengue marqmve wr besmulsve eva u# nel
pees ;
Vole 2UDzIG Qua 2
; oy ‘0 T2aed Eft to 2noltpast oft Af 1
W alc’ zeqwonep weed .S sidsT nt nwode ¢
—
fa; BE te of okitgsogve aw swO sIe82B
ot (eagimotamva) trefeies ew 9d noe or
osnigel tees atiw baisivooni 2inelq { oy to
Hones iievA att (rework Jon 6IBD)| a tti c
fie Yo xftpia vie Pihw beteiyooni nistiw 22S ling
2,G7 ™m Tometeo rlovA fo NolseGoo8 Wily Seg ai
ONG TC) adi nsmheans nl .enormsooss writ wee
Ot onimonuigA oaeedst ssinsaie isd val
‘Ty sat 40 Vern ant mom oF Tosse2o Siew ted ‘
od 2ouyionyg yayaog 4S to enoitwesA oS
ctzlee Sow crolel bre AAV eequed .£ SidsT-4
jgie of Insta eew T-91 sqysonep pete
isLncW omy} esqylonep wed betasat #S to x
ne suaomevemeT ,T-OS-2 ,f-8-249 mud, oe
Aetsiog: VAT OF He of siditasseue t5
2 oats ord ae ribae’ N -oloY bus aoesdeT we
oon. Tkeines WW .beteet estsioet viv lie
ba -sretoal VAT vingen oo tresziter ere e-D0F oxi Or 7 yf
of badgivoord eatsiogi : Wat 5 oy to evit To yogi:
‘og 2 siieT 1 ceeds. sour eotsloet ovit eeett meas
tparchieqya mt beeu esdéloal alt to: smee nome. 2 S303.
baoubn: 1O® eteindt vasesdsT ml ppisliw b on VAT" | oe
savunt tom bib <SeV olidw. esq yronay Va S Pig
oq9 tla
wveg SBEH bre M-ZM! ettetogi Sroieeien 189p ads
josminand 19 er Pepacsinbe'e
+ ;
, oe ;
hala
5 —
puiaiaei Ton ro 288
tT «
weae to m
a be) |
iv oe
Re cou
—
als