Journals / Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry / 2019 / Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 6

Identification and characterization of hypovirus-infected Cryphonectria parasitica isolates from biological control plots in İzmir, Kütahya, and Sinop

Pages
527–537
Publication Date
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Our study showed that the released biological controlhypoviruses persisted in the treated cankers, which is promising for the biological control of chestnut blight in Turkey

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In a pilot study, a biological control with hypovirus-infected Cryphonectria parasitica was applied in 3 study plots in Turkey,in June 2013.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study was to evaluate the success of the applied biological control by verifying the establishment of thereleased hypovirus (CHV-1) strains using molecular markers.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Our study showed that the released biological controlhypoviruses persisted in the treated cankers, which is promising for the biological control of chestnut blight in Turkey
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In a pilot study, a biological control with hypovirus-infected Cryphonectria parasitica was applied in 3 study plots in Turkey,in June 2013. The aim of this study was to evaluate the success of the applied biological control by verifying the establishment of thereleased hypovirus (CHV-1) strains using molecular markers. C. parasitica isolates were sampled from cankers at 3 different time points:before the biological control treatments (April 2013), and 5 months (October 2013) and 11 months (May 2014) after the treatment. Intotal, 255 C. parasitica isolates were recovered and characterized. First, the culture morphology and vegetative compatibility type ofthese isolates were assessed. Next, the presence of hypoviruses in white isolates was checked by RNA extraction and subsequent RTPCR. Finally, a sequence analysis was performed to compare the hypoviruses to the released biological control hypoviruses by examiningsingle nucleotide markers and reconstructing their phylogenetic relationship. The study sites in İzmir and Kütahya were found to befree of hypoviruses prior to the biological control, whereas in Sinop, the occurrence of hypoviruses of the Italian subtype was observed.Reisolations of the treated cankers and subsequent molecular analysis resulted in the detection of the released biocontrol hypovirusstrains in all 3 study sites. The reisolated hypoviruses in İzmir and Kütahya originated from either one of the released biocontrol strains.In Sinop, both natural and artificially introduced hypoviruses were detected. Our study showed that the released biological controlhypoviruses persisted in the treated cankers, which is promising for the biological control of chestnut blight in Turkey

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞİMŞEK, S. A., BORST, N., MADEN, S., ÇAKAR, D., PROSPERO, S., KATIRCIOĞLU, Y. Z. (2022). Identification and characterization of hypovirus-infected Cryphonectria parasitica isolates from biological control plots in İzmir, Kütahya, and Sinop. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 6, 527–537. https://ajindex.com/articles/599250

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Akilli S, Katircioglu YZ, Maden S (2009). Vegetative compatibility types of Cryphonectria parasitica, causal agent of chestnut blight, in the Black Sea region of Turkey. Forest Pathology 39: 390-396.
  2. Akıllı S, Serçe CU, Katırcıoğlu YZ, Maden S, Rigling D (2013). Characterization of hypovirulent isolates of the chestnut blight fungus, Cryphonectria parasitica from the Marmara and Black Sea regions of Turkey. European Journal of Plant Pathology 135: 323-334.
  3. Allemann C, Hoegger P, Heiniger U, Rigling D (1999). Genetic variation of Cryphonectria hypoviruses (CHV1) in Europe assessed using restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) markers. Molecular Ecology 8: 843-854.
  4. Anagnostakis SL (1988). Cryphonectria parasitica, cause of chestnut blight. Advances in Plant Pathology 6: 123-136.
  5. Bryner SF, Rigling D (2011). Temperature-dependent genotypeby-genotype interaction between a pathogenic fungus and its hyperparasitic virus. The American Naturalist 177: 65-74.
  6. Bryner SF, Rigling D, Brunner PC (2012). Invasion history and demographic pattern of Cryphonectria hypovirus 1 across European populations of the chestnut blight fungus. Ecology and Evolution 2: 3227-3241.
  7. Çeliker NM, Onoğur E (2001). Evaluation of hypovirulent isolates of Cryphonectria parasitica for the biological control of chestnut blight. Forest Snow and Landscape Research 76: 378-382.
  8. Çeliker NM, Kaplan C, Onoğur E, Çetinel B, Poyraz D, Uysal A (2017). Natural dissemination of hypovirulent Cryphonectria parasitica strain used for biological control of chestnut blight. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 41: 278-284.
  9. Chen BS, Nuss DL (1999). Infectious cDNA clone of hypovirus CHV-1-Euro7: a comparative virology approach to investigate virus-mediated hypovirulence of the chestnut blight fungus Cryphonectria parasitica. Journal of Virology 73: 985-992.
  10. Choi GH, Nuss DL (1992). Hypovirulence of chestnut blight fungus conferred by an infectious viral cDNA. Science 257: 800-803.
  11. Delen N (1975). Distribution and the biology of chestnut blight (Endothia parasitica) (Murrill) Anderson and Anderson. Journal of Turkish Phytopathology 4: 93-113.
  12. Erincik O, Doken MT, Acikgoz S, Ertan E (2008). Characterization of Cryphonectria parasitica isolates collected from Aydin province in Turkey. Phytoparasitica 36: 249-259.
  13. FAO (2014). Management of Chestnut Blight and Increased Capacity for Improving Forest Health and Vitality. TCP / TUR / 615676 final report. Gobbin D, Hoegger PJ, Heiniger U, Rigling D (2003