Abstract
Sugarcane yellow leaf virus (SCYLV) is one of the most widespread viruses causing disease in sugarcane worldwide. The virus has been responsible for drastic economic losses in most sugarcane-growing regions and remains a major concern for sugarcane breeders. Infection with SCYLV results in intense yellowing of the midrib, which extends to the leaf blade, followed by tissue necrosis from the leaf tip towards the leaf base. Such symptomatic leaves are usually characterized by increased respiration, reduced photosynthesis, a change in the ratio of hexose to sucrose, and an increase in starch content. SCYLV infection affects carbon assimilation and metabolism in sugarcane, resulting in stunted plants in severe cases. SCYLV is mainly propagated by planting cuttings from infected stalks. Phylogenetic analysis has confirmed the worldwide distribution of at least eight SCYLV genotypes (BRA, CHN1, CHN3, CUB, HAW, IND, PER, and REU). Evidence of recombination has been found in the SCYLV genome, which contains potential recombination signals in ORF1/2 and ORF5. This shows that recombination plays an important role in the evolution of SCYLV.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Sugarcane is an important crop that has served as a source of sugar for hundreds of years. The commercial sugarcane cultivars are interspecific hybrids that, under ideal conditions, are capable of storing sucrose in the parenchyma tissues of the stem up to 60 % of the dry weight [67]. Sugarcane has been used as the main source of sugar and, recently, to produce ethanol, an important renewable biofuel energy source. The growing global energy demand and a desire to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-based energy sources have resulted in increased interest in clean renewable biofuels such as ethanol.
Production of sugarcane can adversely be affected by plant pathogens, including viruses. Several viruses, including sugarcane mosaic virus (SCMV), sugarcane streak mosaic virus (SCSMV), sugarcane streak virus (SSV), sugarcane bacilliform virus (SCBV), sugarcane Fiji disease virus (SFDV), sugarcane mild mosaic virus (SCMMV), sorghum mosaic virus (SrMV), and sugarcane yellow leaf virus (SCYLV) infect sugarcane worldwide. Yellow leaf (YL) caused by SCYLV is one of the most important viral diseases affecting sugarcane. This disease has caused epidemics and loss of a major proportion of the crop in sugarcane production regions, including Brazil, where yield losses of up to 50 % have been reported [90]. Yellow leaf syndrome (YLS) was first observed in 1988 and 1990 in Hawaii [81, 82] and Brazil [90]. Soon thereafter, it was found in many other sugarcane-growing regions of the world [39], and was associated with a mollicute bacterium named sugarcane yellows phytoplasma (SCYP) [8]. The most characteristic symptom of YL is a distinct yellowing of the lower surface of the leaf midrib, which can extend laterally to the leaf lamina. The yellowing of the midrib may turn pink or have a reddish tinge in some sugarcane varieties due to sucrose accumulation. These symptoms are not specific to YL and can be caused by various biotic and abiotic stresses [59, 82, 90]. There is now considerable evidence from several studies that have conclusively proven an association of SCYLV with YL [80, 90]. SCYLV is a member of the genus Polerovirus, family Luteoviridae [25]. It is phloem restricted and is transmitted from plant to plant by aphids in a persistent, circulative, and non-replicative manner. Characterization of the genome of SCYLV [66, 87] has revealed a ~6-kb single-stranded RNA genome with six recognized open reading frames (ORFs 0-5) with three untranslated regions (UTRs) that are expressed by a variety of mechanisms [65, 87]. The pathogenic nature of SCYLV was formerly disputed because symptoms were not very specific, and the presence of the virus did not strictly correlate with the symptoms.
The spread and distribution of SCYLV has been attributed to exchange of infected breeding material between global breeding programs. SCYLV exhibits significant genetic diversity, and eight different genetic groups, namely BRA (Brazil), CHN1 and CHN3 (China), CUB (Cuba), HAW (Hawaii), IND (India), PER (Peru), and REU (Réunion Island), have been described based on phylogenetic analysis of partial and/or full-length genome sequences [3, 19, 31, 34, 58, 95] (Fig. 1). Hawaiian isolates of the pathogen differ from the other reported genotypes because they contain a deletion of 48–54 nucleotides (nt) in ORF1 [30, 34]. Variation in pathogenicity among genotypes of SCYLV has also been reported [2]. However, limited information is available on the characteristics of epidemics of YL. In this review, we discuss the epidemiology, biology, and genome characteristics of SCYLV, and the contribution of recombination to its evolution.
Host range of SCYLV
Most luteoviruses have a limited host range, with the exception of beet western yellows virus (BWYV) which has a very wide range of dicotyledonous hosts. Beet mild yellowing virus (BMYV) is the most common beet-infecting luteovirus. While both potato leaf roll virus (PLRV) and BWYV have the same vector, their host ranges are quite different, indicating that the host range of a plant virus is not determined merely by the host range of its vector. In contrast, barley yellow dwarf virus and cereal yellow dwarf virus infect most, if not all, members of the family Poaceae.
The host range of the sugarcane aphid Melanaphis sacchari (Zehntner) is restricted to members of the genera Oryza, Panicum, Pennisetum, Saccharum, and Sorghum [27, 86]. Several studies have been conducted to investigate the host specificity of SCYLV and to determine possible alternative sources of viral infection. Schenck and Lehrer [84] placed viruliferous M. sacchari on cereal grass seedlings and tested the plants for SCYLV by tissue blot immunoassay (TBIA) after 4 weeks. They observed that more than 90 % of the inoculated wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), oats (Avena sativa L.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), and 10 % of rice (Oryza sativa L.) and corn (Zea mays L.) contained SCYLV. These results were surprising, because the cereal grasses are less closely related to sugarcane than Miscanthus or Erianthus, which were SCYLV resistant [46]. In contrast, Komor [46] reported that wheat, rice, and corn in fields next to infected sugarcane fields did not acquire SCYLV during their growth. The same observation was true for wheat, rice, corn, barley, and oats grown in pots outdoors together with pots of infected sugarcane. In contrast, ElSayed [29] reported the first successful transmission of SCYLV by M. sacchari to corn plants. Therefore, we speculate that corn can be an alternative host for SCYLV, but because sugarcane may be the preferred host for M. sacchari, corn next to sugarcane plants may remain SCYLV free [46]. The morphological similarity between sugarcane and corn leaves might be one of several reasons that aphids (M. sacchari) are able to colonize corn. Therefore, future work should be focused on sequencing SCYLV genomes isolated from infected corn to provide more information regarding characterization and identification of possible new virus strains associated with corn. In 2013 and 2014, large populations of M. sacchari were found infesting grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) and johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense) in northeast Texas, Oklahoma, eastern Mississippi, northeastern Mexico, Louisiana, and Florida (Fig. 2). These infestations caused up to 50 % grain sorghum yield losses in Texas [91].
Aphid transmission of SCYLV and symptom expression in infected plants
SCYLV can be transmitted from infected to healthy sugarcane by the common aphids sugarcane aphid (M. sacchari) and corn leaf aphid (Rhopalosiphum maidis), but not by mechanical transmission [80]. So far, a high percentage of transmission of the virus to sugarcane has only been observed with M. sacchari [80]. For example, Rassaby et al. [75] observed that of the two aphid species (M. sacchari and R. maidis) that are known to be able to transmit SCYLV, M. sacchari was the more common in Réunion. Some other phloem-feeding aphids commonly found on sugarcane and other plants in Hawaii also transmitted SCYLV, but much less efficiently [54]. In Brazil, the yellow sugarcane aphid (Sipha flava) also transmitted SCYLV [60].
Within sugarcane fields, the most important proliferation of SCYLV occurs by planting infected stem cuttings or sections of stalks called “setts”. The progression of viral infection via aphids has been estimated to be in the range of 2–5 m per year [54]. The aphids either walk or are carried by ants or strong winds [54]. Also, ambient conditions play a role in the speed of infection progression, as observed by differences in infection rates of plants in the border rows at different locations. Lehrer et al. [54] studied the transmission of SCYLV over middle distances in several plantings of a virus-free cultivar, H87-4094, at different locations isolated from sugarcane plantations in Hawaii. In that study, at heavily aphid-infested and SCYLV-infected sites at a sugarcane breeding station and a field station, the infection pressure was very high, such that 80 % of virus-free plants became infected within four months. In contrast, virus-free plants at a distance of 1 km from the breeding station remained completely virus free after 4 months. Also, a large plot of virus-free sugarcane 15 km away from infected sugarcane plants remained virus free after 20 years [47]. A 100-m-wide swath of resistant cultivars planted between a plot of infected sugarcane and a plot of susceptible, virus-free sugarcane proved sufficient to completely prevent infection of the virus-free plants for at least 15 months. This shows that propagation of infection by aphids proceeds slowly and sporadically, in the range of a few metres per year. A similar sporadic and patchy spread of infection was observed in test fields on Réunion Island [75]. This may be different in other sugarcane-growing regions, where infectious aphids may be moved over greater distances by wind. For example, SCYLV infection has been reported to spread at a rate of 20–80 % in Florida within 18 months [23]. Generally, the geographical distribution of M. sacchari follows the cultivation of sorghum and sugarcane worldwide and covers Angola, Brazil, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, Haiti, Hawaii, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jamaica, the Middle East, Nigeria, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, Sudan, Thailand, Trinidad, Tobago, Uganda, and Venezuela [86]. The genus Melanaphis has 20 species that are associated with members of the family Poaceae [12].
SCYLV is often present in infected plants without visible disease symptoms. However, when expressed, the major symptom is leaf yellowing (Fig. 3), appearing first on the abaxial midrib surface and leaf tip of leaves 3–6 from the top expanded spindle leaf. The disease etiology resembles senescence; however, it occurs on younger leaves where senescence would be least expected. The lower surface of the midrib develops a distinct yellow colour, while the upper surface may be unchanged or develop a yellow, pink, or reddish coloration. In addition, symptoms of YL also include shortening of terminal internodes, necrosis of leaves, and sucrose accumulation in the midribs. In many cultivars, the yellowing spreads laterally from the midrib into the lamina, and leaves begin to die from the tip, while in other cultivars, a general yellowing of the leaves occurs. The leaf blade can also become bleached, proceeding from the tip toward the base of the leaf. Lehrer and Komor [50] reported different grades of leaf yellowing during the infection period of sugarcane by SCYLV. The leaf yellowing started from the midrib, proceeded successively to the leaf blade and finally led to completely dry leaf edges. This progression of yellowing was different from yellowing related to plant age or nutrient shortage. Generally, visible symptoms of YL are most often not expressed until late in the growing season as the plant matures [20, 59]. It is notable that some studies have shown that the incidence of yellowing symptoms in sugarcane is not correlated with the presence of SCYLV [5, 87]. Leaf yellowing in sugarcane is not specific to SCYLV, because several biotic and abiotic factors such as nutrient deficiencies or excesses [13, 62], cold or water stresses [22], and phytoplasma infection [87] can cause these symptoms. Whereas Lehrer and Komor [50] found a clear relationship between the presence of SCYLV and YL symptoms [50], these symptoms, as mentioned previously, were in different grades of leaf yellowing. For example, susceptible and moderately susceptible sugarcane cultivars showed severe symptoms, whereas virus-free and resistant sugarcane cultivars rarely showed yellowing leaf symptoms, and if they did, these symptoms were mostly mild [50].
The highly infected cultivar H78-3606 exhibited few symptoms, as did the resistant cultivars, whereas the intermediately infected cultivar H65-7052 showed symptoms as severe as those of the strongly infected susceptible cultivars H73-6110 and H87-4094 [50]. Based on these studies, the correlation between the presence of SCYLV and YL symptom expression is not well understood. Interestingly, some Hawaiian cultivars consistently express a high percentage of leaf symptoms, but the expression of symptoms fluctuates with plant age, as observed with some Hawaiian cultivars and not with other sugarcane cultivars [50]. Consequently, several aspects of these inconsistencies should be investigated – for example, the reliability of the SCYLV detection method and symptom determination and factors other than SCYLV that result in an increase or suppression of symptom expression. Yellow leaf symptoms are normally expressed in 6–8 months in the field. However, Chinnaraja et al. [19] recently observed yellow leaf symptoms at 30 days in sugarcane cv. B38192. Also, ratoon crops exhibited earlier disease expression.
Geographical distribution of SCYLV
SCYLV is widespread in most sugarcane-producing regions of the world. The first report of SCYLV was in Hawaii in the late 1980s [81, 83], and it was later reported in other sugarcane-growing regions of the world [4, 7, 9, 10, 21, 22, 24, 32, 68, 75, 87, 90, 92]. Abu Ahmad et al. [4] reported that SCYLV genotypes BRA-PER, CUB, and REU were found in 137 (56 %), 51 (21 %), and 82 (33 %), respectively, of the 245 sugarcane samples from different geographical regions around the world. These three genotypes of SCYLV are not distributed uniformly across the world. Genotype BRA-PER has been found in 18 sugarcane-growing locations (Table 1) in Africa, Asia, and North, Central, and South America, whereas genotypes CUB and REU have been found in only four locations [4]. The worldwide distribution of genotype BRA-PER suggests that YL was originally caused by this genotype, which was spread worldwide by infected plant material when the causal agent of YL was unknown and not intercepted in sugarcane quarantines [16]. Interestingly, the genotype BRA-PER is present worldwide, but its incidence varies according to the sugarcane-growing location [4]. In contrast, the genotype CUB has only been found in South America (Brazil, Colombia) and the Caribbean (Cuba, Guadeloupe). Genotype REU has only been found in locally bred varieties in Guadeloupe, Brazil, Mauritius, and Réunion Island (Table 1), and phylogenetic analysis has shown it to be almost separated in a unique group [3, 19, 30, 34, 38, 96]. The limitation in the geographical distribution of CB and REU genotypes is probably attributed to environmental conditions and/or interactions. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the aphid vector is important in the evolution of luteoviruses [4]. Furthermore, changing the environment or replicative niche of the virus may have different costs to fitness. The changing environment becomes important in many plant viruses that have a broad host range or that can be transmitted by vectors of several different species [29, 32].
Physiological impact of SCYLV
Infection of sugarcane by SCYLV is characterized by a backup of carbohydrates, mostly starch, in the source leaves and a shift of enzymes that are involved in sucrose and starch metabolism. This is accompanied by ultrastructural changes of bundle sheath and mesophyll chloroplasts and, finally, degradation of chlorophyll, resulting in leaf yellowing [40, 53, 99]. These observations have led to the conclusion that assimilate export is inhibited by SCYLV infection, either by a lack of sucrose transporters or by a physical block of sieve tube mass flow by callose deposition. Stems of susceptible cultivars have less hexoses and starch than resistant cultivars. This has been observed in infected versus virus-free plants of cv. H87-4094 [53]. In general, lower hexose and starch content indicates a more mature state of sugarcane internodes. Therefore, it appears that stem internodes of SCYLV-susceptible cultivars are faster in ripening than resistant cultivars, a feature that is observed in the extreme when sugarcane plants became symptomatic [53]. Because sucrose is delivered to the stem and hexose is produced by invertase, high hexose content will favour starch synthesis. The differences in carbohydrate composition indicate that SCYLV susceptibility has an impact on the carbohydrate physiology of the plants [56]. Lehrer and Komor [51] observed that the larger decrease in the assimilation rate compared to stomatal conductance led to a higher internal carbon dioxide concentration in the symptomatic leaves compared to the asymptomatic leaves. In this regard, the symptomatic leaves behaved like leaves under salinity stress, which led to a higher internal carbon dioxide concentration [64].
ElSayed et al. [33] compared the expression of the sucrose transporter gene (ShSUT1A) in virus-free sugarcane and in infected sugarcane and observed a slightly higher transcript level in infected plants. Therefore, the previous reports that SCYLV-infected plants seem to suffer under assimilate export inhibition cannot be traced back to a lower expression of sucrose transporter ShSUT1A in source leaves. The SCYLV-infected internodes, which definitely contain the virus in the companion cells of the bundles, also seem to contain a higher transcript level than internodes of virus-free plants [33], which would appear to conform to the slightly higher sucrose levels in stems of infected plants [53]. However, a high sucrose level may also result from premature maturation because of virus-caused inhibition of apical growth, which occurs when infected plants turn symptomatic [50]. Deficiencies in sucrose transporter expression (assuming that the transcript levels mirror the protein levels) is not the cause for decreased assimilate export in infected plants. The viral movement protein increases the size exclusion limit of plasmodesmata and may thus inhibit phloem loading, as was postulated for transgenic plants expressing the movement protein of potato leafroll luteovirus [42]. This might be due to the movement protein containing domains that interfere with the regulation of photoassimilate translocation and partitioning [71]. However, there may also be indirect effects of viral infection on metabolism or growth, such as inhibition of sugar transport proteins, sugar signaling, or metabolic network regulation [44, 101]. Regarding carbohydrate metabolism and starch content in SCYLV-infected plants, Yan et al. [99] reported that SCYLV-infected leaves had significant amounts of starch grains in Kranz cells and mRNA of ADP-glucose pyrophosphorylase (AGPase) was detected in bundle sheath and Kranz cells, of infected leaves. AGPase is thought to be the enzyme that controls starch biosynthesis [70]. Furthermore, Yan et al. [99] found lower levels of metabolites in the young leaves of infected plants than in virus-free plants. These metabolites act as precursors for sucrose and starch biosynthesis, which may be a consequence of a higher sucrose and/or starch biosynthesis rate. In contrast, in older leaves, where assimilates backed up, these metabolites increased, possibly by reversal of sucrose synthase activity in the direction of UDP-glucose. The increase in adenosine triphosphate (ATP) concentration in infected leaves may reflect photosynthetic and respiratory ATP generation without an equivalent consumption of ATP. Elevated AGPase in bundle sheath cells and Kranz mesophyll indicates that SCYLV infection directly or indirectly stimulates transcription of these genes in these cells and also probably increases enzymatic activities [99]. SCYLV appears confined to the sieve tube-companion cell complex. Neither SCYLV RNA nor SCYLV coat protein has been observed outside the phloem, which shows that the effects on carbohydrate metabolism enzymes in bundle sheath and Kranz mesophyll must be indirect and are probably a result of sugar backup due to export inhibition. Conceivably, the presence of elevated levels of viral movement protein reduces the osmotic pressure in the phloem by counteracting the pressure buildup by active sucrose transport. Unfortunately, pressure determinations in sieve tubes are not possible so far in sugarcane (or any plant) [99]. The change in chlorophyll content in infected sugarcane has been reported by Yan et al. [99]. They observed that the change in the chlorophyll a/b ratio in infected sugarcane leaves was similar to the change in the chlorophyll a/b ratio at the onset of senescence, even though the change in the total chlorophyll content was only marginal. A lower chlorophyll a/b ratio had been observed under low-light conditions, where it is thought to be an adaptation that broadens the light absorption spectrum [6].
Viswanathan et al. [93] studied the physiological changes of SCYLV infection in sugarcane by comparing symptomatic, asymptomatic and virus-free plants derived through meristem culture. Virus infection in sugarcane adversely affected various physiological parameters, such as photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, and chlorophyll concentration in symptomatic plants of the susceptible varieties. The chlorophyll concentration in the leaves was measured using a SPAD meter. There was a reduction of 44-57 %, 47-48 %, 36-47 %, and 30-34 % in photosynthesis rate, stomatal conductance, transpiration rate, and chlorophyll concentration, respectively, in symptomatic plants. Also, virus infection resulted in a reduction of 31-33 % in the leaf area index in symptomatic plants.
Sugarcane yield losses from SCYLV infection
SCYLV is considered to be the most important viral disease of sugarcane worldwide that can cause significant yield losses. Losses in yield due to YL have been reported in several sugarcane-growing regions. Yield losses of 50 % have been reported in Brazil [59], up to 14 % in sugar yield loss in Louisiana [41], 11 % loss of both stalk weight and sugar yield [23] and 14 % in sugar yield loss [37] in Florida, and 11 % and 28 %, respectively, for loss of sugar content and stalk weight in Réunion [75]. In Thailand, YLS reduced sugarcane yield up to 30 %, even when the plants were asymptomatic [52]. SCYLV infection reduced plant growth and juice yield by 39-43 % and 30-34 %, respectively, in susceptible varieties at harvest in India [93]. Sugarcane yields are further decreased when plants are infected by SCYLV in combination with phytoplasma [5].
When SCYLV-free and SCYLV-infected plants of the same cultivar (H87-4094) were compared in Hawaii, Lehrer et al. [55] reported visual differences in growth between the virus-free and infected plants during the first five months. In addition, the stalk number was significantly higher (44 %) in the virus-free sugarcane than in the infected cane when sugarcane was harvested after 11 months. This reduction in stalk number resulted in a 40 % higher biomass in the virus-free plants compared to the infected plants at 11 months. There was no significant difference in sugar concentration, but the sugar yield per plot was 35 % higher in the SCYLV-free plot because of the difference in biomass. This difference in biomass and sugar yield was transient and had disappeared when the plants were harvested after 16 or 24 months. Because 18 % of the originally virus-free plants became infected during growth in the fields, any small yield advantage of the virus-free plots may have been obscured, and more repetitions would have been necessary to determine possible differences [55]. In addition, Rassaby et al. [76] reported 46 % reduction of stalk weight of the ratoon crop (versus 28 % in the plant cane crop), 13 % reduction of stalk diameter (versus 7 % in the plant cane crop), and significant reduction in tonnage (37 %) as a result of SCYLV infection of cultivar R57. Additionally, significant losses in sugar content (12 %) due to reduced amount and quality of extracted cane juice have been reported. Some studies reported observation of leaf yellowing symptoms in both virus-infected and virus-free plants [52, 76]. These observations are probably attributed to the presence of other pathogens that can interfere with sugarcane growth and increase the severity of leaf yellowing. For example, combined infection of lettuce with beet western yellows virus (BWYV) and lettuce mosaic virus (LMV) resulted in a significantly greater yield loss than that caused by BWYV or CMV infection alone [95]. When sugarcane exhibits mosaic and another disease simultaneously, growth and yield are reduced more than when the plants have only one of these diseases [45].
Elimination of SCYLV
Unlike fungal and bacterial pathogens, viruses are difficult to eradicate by the hot-water treatments used in quarantine protocols [18]. Therefore, such treatments cannot be used to eradicate SCYLV from infected stalks [80]. There are three methods used for elimination of viruses from plants, including thermotherapy, tissue culture, and chemotherapy. However, thermotherapy and chemotherapy often fail to eliminate pathogens when used alone, but their combination with the meristem culture technique has given satisfactory results [11, 74, 97]. The meristem culture technique is the most widely used method for virus elimination in meristematic tissues of apical shoots. This technique takes advantage of the fact that many viruses fail to invade and replicate in the meristematic region [35]. Transfer of the meristem dome, together with one or two leaf primordia, to a culture medium and development into a plantlet may lead to the elimination of viruses. Successful elimination of sugarcane mosaic virus and Fiji disease virus in sugarcane using apex or bud culture has been reported [57, 94]. Meristem tip, axillary bud, and callus culture may be used for elimination of SCYLV from commercial and noble sugarcane cultivars with variable rates of success [16, 36, 72, 74]. The success of meristem tip culture depends on the ability to dissect the meristematic dome with one or two leaf primordia from the mother plant and its successful regeneration. Larger meristem tips (>1 mm) are likely to be infected, whereas smaller ones (<0.3 mm) are unlikely to develop into plantlets [16]. This implies that not all meristem tips established would be guaranteed to be virus-free, emphasizing the need for sensitive diagnostic tools for disease indexing. However, Fitch et al. [36] reported that all plants regenerated from callus derived from meristems or buds produced virus-free plants and remained free from SCYLV for at least 4 years, with the exception of two meristem explants that were ≥1 mm. Chatenet et al. [16] reported that apical meristem culture was an efficient method for the elimination of SCYLV, with a 92 % success rate. In contrast, Parmessur et al. [72] reported 64 % disease-free plantlets with the apical meristem culture. These authors also reported that it is possible to eliminate the virus from infected plants by culturing callus derived from leaf rolls. The elimination of SCYLV using meristem culture may be attributed to the uneven distribution of the virus in the different tissues of the leaf.
Breeding for SCYLV resistance
The resistance and susceptibility of sugarcane cultivars to SCYLV has been investigated in many sugarcane-breeding programs, but the complexity of the sugarcane genome has so far prevented information on the genetics of the disease from being obtained [39, 43]. Seventy percent of Hawaiian commercial sugarcane hybrids have been reported to be SCYLV susceptible [47]. Using hybrids obtained by crossing breeding lines of Hawaiian cultivars, it was shown that the progeny of a susceptible female plant yielded 75 % susceptible plants, and that from a resistant female cultivar yielded 90 % resistant plants (male parents are mostly unknown because of polycross breeding). In addition, a cross between an SCYLV-resistant S. robustum (cv. ‘Mol 5829’) and an SCYLV-susceptible S. officinarum (cv. ‘LA Purple’) yielded 85 % resistant progeny clones, which indicated that SCYLV resistance is a dominant trait [47].
Zhu et al. [102, 103] engineered transgenic sugarcane plants containing a untranslated fragment of the coat protein to reduce the incidence of SCYLV. Six out of nine transgenic lines had an at least 103-fold lower SCYLV titre than the susceptible parent line H62-4671, whereas no difference was found between plants containing NPT II and the non-transformed parent [103]. Yield tests of SCYLV-free lines in the field obtained by meristem culture showed that the absence of SCYLV in a commercial cultivar increased yield for at least a one-year crop cycle [55]. A field study using cv. H65-7052 showed that field plots with plants of higher virus titer developed YLS, resulting in 54–60 % lower cane and sugar tonnage compared to field plots with plants of low virus titer [102]. Therefore, the transgenic approach to producing high-yielding sugarcane cultivars with resistance to SCYLV seems to be a valuable option for regions with high incidence of the virus, such as Hawaii [103].
Classification, genome organization and gene functions
Luteoviruses have been classified into three genera, namely, Luteovirus, Polerovirus, and Enamovirus, based on their genomic organization, replication strategy, and expression mechanism. RNA sequences of SCYLV revealed that the virus belongs to the genus Polerovirus, family Luteoviridae [25], but it originated by recombination and had ancestors from all three of these genera (Fig. 4) [61, 87].
SCYLV has a positive-sense, single-stranded genomic RNA (+ssgRNA) of ~6 kb with a small protein, VPg, linked to its 5′ end [66]. Its RNA genome contains six major open reading frames (ORFs) that are expressed by a variety of mechanisms [63]. The three 5′-proximal ORFs are translated directly from the genomic RNA and include ORF1, encoding the 72.5-kDa viral protease and ORF2, which is translated via a ribosomal frameshift within ORF1 to yield the 120.6-kDa viral replicase. ORF2 shows the most similarity to the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (RdRp) genes of the Polerovirus [87]. Three other ORFs are expressed via a subgenomic RNA synthesized in infected cells and include ORF3, encoding the 21.8-kDa viral capsid protein, and ORF4, encoding a 17-kDa putative movement protein. ORF4 permits infection of the phloem tissue of the entire plant [17]. The homologue of ORF4 in PLRV has many biochemical properties of a cell-to-cell movement protein, including nonspecific single-stranded nucleic acid binding and the ability to be phosphorylated and localized to the plasmodesmata [85].
ORF5, which is necessary for aphid transmission [17] and also involved in virus movement, is expressed as a readthrough protein with ORF3 (capsid protein) and codes for a putative aphid transmission factor (PATF). It encodes a 52.1-kDa protein that presumably is involved in aphid transmission of the virus [79, 87]. The poleroviruses have an extra ORF (0) at the 5′ end that is absent in barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV). SCYLV ORF0 begins at the first AUG codon in the sequence and encodes a 30.2-kDa protein that functions as suppressor of RNA silencing [73]. ORF0 from PLRV induces virus symptoms on its own [89].
Recombination and evolution
Changes in environment, expanding host range, new agricultural practices, and the increasing global movement of human populations and plant products all enforce the heterogeneous nature of plant viruses [78]. Adaptation of living organisms to a changing environment through evolution, which has generated the considerable variability that we encounter every day, requires a compromise between genetic variation and phenotypic selection. Viruses, particularly RNA viruses, have been shown to have high variability due to evolutionary forces including mutation, reassortment (for viruses with a segmented genome), and recombination [28, 77]. The high mutation rate observed in viral RNA replication is attributed to the lack of proofreading-repair activity of viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerases (RdRp).
RNA recombination is thought to rescue viral genomes by repairing mutation errors in essential viral genes or in structures that could be introduced during RNA replication [14, 49]. Recombination events may play an important role in generating genome diversity. It has been shown that RNA recombination enables exchange of genetic material not only between the same or similar viruses but also between distinctly different viruses [98]. Furthermore, it also results in crossovers between viral and host RNA [1, 69]. Recent reports strongly suggest that RNA recombination is linked to virus replication and that it occurs by a copy-choice mechanism. Inter-species recombination has frequently occurred in the evolution of members of the Luteoviridae. RNA recombination events probably created the divergence observed between members of the genera Luteovirus and Polerovirus [26]. Two major forces, recombination and positive selection, drive the molecular evolution of viruses. An essential step in any phylogeny-based analysis is to screen for and quantify evidence for recombination [48]. Generally, recombination rates vary considerably among plant RNA viruses. This might be due to the different levels of precision of viral replication proteins (i.e., variations in the error-prone nature of the replicase) during RNA replication and the presence or absence of recombinationally active sequences (recombination hotspots). However, environmental and host effects are likely to influence the rate of RNA recombination, in addition to the better-characterized viral factors. Natural selection of the recombinant and parent viruses ensures the survival of only the fittest. Depending on the precision of recombination events, RNA recombination can lead to various genetic changes. These include sequence insertions and duplications if the recombination end breakpoint in one of the recombining RNAs is upstream relative to the endpoint of the other RNA. Reversal of the positions of recombination endpoints on the viral RNAs can lead to deletions. Furthermore, exchanged genetic material may lead to a progeny through different mechanisms, such as intramolecular recombination when polymerases switch templates [98], or homologous or non-homologous recombination. The most variation in the RNA sequence and deduced amino acid sequence of SCYLV was found in the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase gene, as reported previously by Moonan and Mirkov [65]. Recombination events located in the RdRp domain of the Hawaiian SCYLV isolates were detected by ElSayed et al. [30] using two methods (RDP v.4.3 and RECCO), which revealed that the two Hawaiian isolates (Haw73-6110 and Haw87-4094) were recombinants.
Viruses with RNA genomes are known to have mutation rates per site per replication that are three to four orders of magnitude higher than those of viruses with DNA genomes [28]. This difference is attributed to the error-prone nature of the viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase. Like many other plant RNA viruses, SCYLV appears to undergo recombination events [30]. In order to understand the reasons for variation among SCYLV isolates, ElSayed et al. [31] investigated sequence diversity and occurrence of recombination events in the RdRp and putative aphid transmission factor (PATF) coding genes of 25 SCYLV isolates. This study showed that the RdRp and PATF coding genes are potential locations for recombination using the GARD algorithm. Screening and quantifying evidence for recombination were necessary to avoid errors in phylogenetic analysis and to account for selection pressure that might act on the encoded proteins. Negative and positive selection have been observed for SCYLV, but the frequency of mutants is relatively low [31]. New viruses may have RNAs that are taxonomically distinct but interdependent [100]. Additionally, the clustering patterns of SCYLV isolates were clearly influenced by recombination events that occurred in the RdRp domain. Partial sequences of the SCYLV RdRp gene displayed higher diversity than the PATF gene [31]. Another study that might contribute to our understanding of recombination events in SCYLV genome has been conducted by ElSayed and Boulila (unpublished). They investigated possible recombination events located in ORFs 0, 1, and 3 of SCYLV using three programs, namely, TOPALi v2.5, RECCO, and the RDP package. It is noteworthy that the TOPALi v2.5, and RECCO methods strongly indicated the presence of recombination in aligned sequences of ORFs 0, and 1. In contrast, no recombination signals were detected in ORF3 using those methods. The RDP package did not reveal any recombination signals in ORFs 0 and 3, but in ORF1, numerous accessions were identified as potential recombinants.
It has been proposed that recombination along with mutation can be advantageous for RNA viruses, as it can create high fitness genotypes more rapidly than mutation alone [15]. Changes in the environment or replicative niches of the virus may have required recombination for fitness. This becomes especially important in plant viruses that have a broad host range or can use several vector species for transmission. Viruses that replicate in both plants and the insects that transmit them from plant to plant probably experience dramatically different selection pressures in each host [77].
Conclusion and future prospects
There is increased interest in RNA virus-plant systems for several reasons. First, more than 95 % of plant-infecting viruses are RNA viruses. Second, RNA molecules can affect practically every stage of plant gene expression. Third, plants can utilize RNAi as a specific antiviral mechanism. Finally, RNA-dependent RNA polymerases, the enzymes mediating RNA recombination, are encoded by both viruses and plants [88].
The changing environment becomes important in many plant viruses that have a broad host range or that can be transmitted by several different vector species. Viruses that replicate in both plants and in the insects that transmit them probably face greatly different selection pressures in each host [77]. Therefore, we should place emphasis on studying the impact of environmental conditions on SCYLV replication and evaluation. There is a need to further investigate the biological significance of the genetic diversity found in SCYLV, as well as understanding the genome dynamics of SCYLV. Consequently, it is essential to improve our knowledge of SCYLV, its vector, its hosts other than sugarcane, and its causal agent in order to manage the important diseases of sugarcane, especially with regard to screening and cultivation of resistant cultivars. Two combined strategies are proposed to confine SCYLV infection to a low level. One is to identify and deploy resistant varieties [84], and the other is to employ a cultivation scheme in which virus-free cane plants, generated by meristem tip culture, are grown for seed piece production in fields remote from commercial sugarcane fields.
References
Aaziz R, Tepfer M (1999) Recombination in RNA viruses and in virus-resistant transgenic plants. J Gen Virol 80:1339–1346
Abu Ahmad Y, Costet L, Daugrois JH et al (2007) Variation in infection capacity and in virulence exists between genotypes of Sugarcane yellow leaf virus. Plant Dis 91:253–259
Abu Ahmad Y, Rassaby L, Royer M et al (2006) Yellow leaf of sugarcane is caused by at least three different genotypes of sugarcane yellow leaf virus, one of which predominates on the Island of Réunion. Arch Virol 151:1355–1371
Abu Ahmad Y, Royer M, Daugrois J-H et al (2006) Geographical distribution of four Sugarcane yellow leaf virus genotypes. Plant Dis 90:1156–1160
Aljanabi SM, Parmessur Y, Moutia Y, Saumtally S, Dookun A (2001) Further evidence of the association of a phytoplasma and a virus with yellow leaf syndrome in sugarcane. Plant Pathol 50:628–636
Anderson JM (1986) Photoregulation of the composition, function, and structure of thylakoid membranes. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 37:93–136
Arocha Y, Gonzalez L, Peralta EL, Jones P (1999) First report of virus and phytoplasma pathogens associated with yellow leaf syndrome of sugarcane in Cuba. Plant Dis 83:1177
Arocha Y, Lopez M, Fernandez M et al (2005) Transmission of a sugarcane yellow leaf phytoplasma by the delphacid plant hopper Saccharosydne saccharivora, a new vector of sugarcane yellow leaf syndrome. Plant Pathol 54:634–642
Avila R, Arrieta MC, Villalobos W et al (2001) First report of sugarcane yellow leaf virus (SCYLV) in Costa Rica. Plant Dis 85:919
Bailey RA, Bechet GR, Cronje CPR (1996) Notes on the occurrence of yellow leaf syndrome of sugarcane in southern Africa. S Afr Sugar Technol Assoc Proc 70:3–6
Balamuralikrishnan M, Dorisamy S, Ganapathy T, Viswanathan R (2002) Combined effect of chemotherapy and meristem culture on sugarcane mosaic virus elimination in sugarcane. Sugar Tech 4:19–25
Blackman RL, Eastop VF (1984) Aphids on the world’s crops: an identification and information guide. Wiley, New York
Borth W, Hu JS, Schenck S (1994) Double-stranded RNA associated with sugarcane yellow leaf syndrome. Sugar Cane 3:5–8
Carpenter CD, Simon AE (1996) In vivo restoration of biologically active 3′ ends of virus-associated RNAs by nonhomologous RNA recombination and replacement of a terminal motif. J Virol 70:478–486
Chare ER, Holmes EC (2006) A phylogenetic survey of recombination frequency in plant RNA viruses. Arch Virol 15:933–946
Chatenet M, Delage C, Ripolles M, Irey M, Lockhart BEL, Rott P (2001) Detection of Sugarcane yellow leaf virus in quarantine and production of virus-free sugarcane by apical meristem culture. Plant Dis 85:1177–1180
Chay C, Smith DM, Vaughan R, Gray SM (1996) Diversity among isolates within the PAV serotype of Barley yellow dwarf virus. Phytopathology 86:370–377
Cheong EJ, Mock R, Li R (2012) Elimination of five viruses from sugarcane using in vitro culture of axillary buds and apical meristems. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 109:439–445
Chinnaraja C, Viswanathan R, Karuppaiah R, Bagyalakshmi K, Malathi P, Parameswari B (2013) Complete genome characterization of sugarcane yellow leaf virus from India: evidence for RNA recombination. Eur J Plant Pathol 135:335–349
Comstock JC, Gilbert RA (2005) Sugarcane yellow leaf disease. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service Fact Sheet SS-AGR-256.3 pp. University of Florida, UF/IFAS Electronic Data Information Source (EDIS) Database
Comstock JC, Irey MS, Lockhart BEL, Wang ZK (1998) Incidence of yellow leaf syndrome in CP cultivars based on polymerase chain reaction and serological techniques. Sugar Cane 4:21–24
Comstock JC, Irvine JE, Miller JD (1994) Yellow leaf syndrome appears on the United States mainland. Sugar J 56:33–35
Comstock JC, Miller JD (2004) Yield comparisons: disease-free tissue culture versus bud-propagated sugarcane plants and healthy versus yellow leaf infected plants. Sugar Tech 24:31–40
Comstock JC, Pena M, Vega J, Fors A, Lockhart BEL (2002) Report of Sugarcane yellow leaf virus in Ecuador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. Plant Dis 86:74
D’Arcy CJ, Domier L (2005) Luteoviridae. In: Fauquet CM, Mayo MA, Maniloff J, Desselberger U, Ball LA (eds) Virus taxonomy. VIIIth report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses. Elsevier Academic Press, New York, pp 891–900
D’Arcy CJ, Mayo M (1997) Proposals for changes in luteovirus taxonomy and nomenclature. Arch Virol 142:1285–1287
Denmark HA (1988) Sugarcane aphids in Florida. Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry. Entomol Circular 302
Domingo E, Holland JJ (1997) RNA virus mutations and fitness for survival. Annu Rev Microbiol 51:151–178
ElSayed AI (2013) Maize (Zea mays L.) constitutes a novel host to Sugarcane yellow leaf virus. Can J Plant Pathol 35:68–74
ElSayed AI, Boulila M, Komor E, Zhu YJ (2012) Putative recombination signature and significance of deletion/insertion events in RdRp coding region of Sugarcane yellow leaf virus. Biochimie 94:1764–1772
ElSayed AI, Boulila M, Rott P (2014) Molecular evolutionary history of Sugarcane yellow leaf virus based on sequence analysis of RNA-dependent RNA polymerase and putative aphid transmission factor-coding genes. J Mol Evol 78:349–365
ElSayed AI, Komor E (2012) Investigation of ORF0 as a sensitive alternative diagnostic segment to detect Sugarcane yellow leaf virus. J Gen Plant Pathol 78:207–216
ElSayed AI, Ramadan MF, Komor E (2010) Expression of sucrose transporter (ShSUT1) in a Hawaiian sugarcane cultivar infected with sugarcane yellow leaf virus (SCYLV). Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 75:56–63
ElSayed AI, Weig AR, Komor E (2011) Molecular characterization of Hawaiian Sugarcane yellow virus leaf genotypes and their phylogenetic relationship to strains from other sugarcane growing countries. Eur J Plant Pathol 129:399–412
Faccioli G, Marani F (1998) Virus elimination by meristem tip culture and tip micrografting. In: Hadidi A, Khetarpal RK, Koganezawa H (eds) Plant virus disease control. American Phytopathological Society, St Paul, pp 346–373
Fitch MMM, Lehre AT, Komor E, Moore PH (2001) Elimination of sugarcane yellow leaf virus from infected sugarcane plants by meristem tip culture visualized by tissue blot immunoassay. Plant Pathol 50:676–680
Flynn J, Powell G, Perdomo R, Monres G, Quebedeaux K, Comstock JC (2005) Comparison of sugarcane disease incidence and yield of field-run, heat-treated, and tissue culture based seedcane. Sugar Tech 25:88–100
Gao S-J, Lin Y-H, Pan Y-B, Damaj MB, Wang Q-N, Mirkov TE, Chen R-K (2012) Molecular characterization and phylogenetic analysis of Sugarcane yellow leaf virus isolates from China. Virus Gen 45:340–349
Gonçalves MC, Pinto LR, Souza SC, Landell MGA (2012) Virus diseases of sugarcane. A constant challenge to sugarcane breeding in Brazil. Funct Plant Sci Biotechnol 6:108–116
Gonҫalves MC, Vega J, Oliveira JG, Gomes MMA (2005) Sugarcane yellow leaf virus infection leads to alterations in photosynthetic efficiency and carbohydrate accumulation in sugarcane leaves. Fitopatologia Brasileira 30:10–16
Grisham MP, Pan YB, Legendre BL, Godshall MA, Eggleston G (2001) Effect of sugarcane yellow leaf virus on sugarcane yield and juice quality. Sugar Tech 24:434–438
Herbers K, Tacke E, Hazirezaei M et al (1997) Expression of a luteoviral movement protein in transgenic plants leads to carbohydrate accumulation and reduced photosynthetic capacity in source leaves. Plant J 12:1045–1056
Hoarau JY, Souza G, D’Hont A, Menossi M, Pinto LR, Souza AP, Grivet L, Menck CFM, Ulian EC, Vincentz M (2007) Sugarcane, a tropical crop with a highly complex genome. In: Morot-Gaudry JF, Lea P, Briat JF (eds) Functional plant Genomics (Vol I, 1st End). INRA, France, pp 1–708
Hofius D, Herbers K, Melzer M et al (2001) Evidence for expression level dependent modulation of carbohydrate status and viral resistance by the potato leafroll virus movement protein in transgenic tobacco plants. Plant J 28:529–543
Koike H, Gillaspie AG (1989) Mosaic. In: Ricaud C, Egan BT, Gillaspie AG Jr, Hughes CG (eds) Diseases of sugarcane major diseases. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 301–322
Komor E (2011) Susceptibility of sugarcane, plantation weeds and grain cereals to infection by Sugarcane yellow leaf virus and selection by sugarcane breeding in Hawaii. Eur J Plant Pathol 129:379–388
Komor E, ElSayed A, Lehrer AT (2010) Sugarcane yellow leaf virus introduction and spread in Hawaiian sugarcane industry: retrospective epidemiological study of an unnoticed, mostly asymptomatic plant disease. Eur J Plant Pathol 127:207–217
Kosakovsky Pond SL, Posada D, Gravenor MB, Woelk CH, Frost SDW (2006) Automated phylogenetic detection of recombination using a genetic algorithm. Mol Biol Evol 23:1891–1901
Lai MM (1992) RNA recombination in animal and plant viruses. Microbiol Rev 56:61–79
Lehrer AT, Komor E (2008) Symptom expression of yellow leaf disease in sugarcane cultivars with different degrees of infection by Sugarcane yellow leaf virus. Plant Pathol 57:178–189
Lehrer AT, Komor E (2009) Carbon dioxide assimilation by virus-free sugarcane plants and by plants which were infected by Sugarcane Yellow Leaf Virus. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 73:147–153
Lehrer AT, Kusalwong A, Komor E (2008) High incidence of Sugarcane yellow leaf virus (SCYLV) in sugar plantations and germplasm collections in Thailand. Aust Plant Dis Notes 3:89–92
Lehrer AT, Moore PH, Komor E (2007) Impact of sugarcane yellow leaf virus (ScYLV) on the carbohydrate status of sugarcane: comparison of virus-free plants with symptomatic and asymptomatic virus-infected plants. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 70:180–188
Lehrer AT, Schenck S, Yan S-L, Komor E (2007) Movement of aphid-transmitted Sugarcane yellow leaf virus (ScYLV) within and between sugarcane plants. Plant Pathol 56:711–717
Lehrer AT, Wu KK, Komor E (2009) Impact of sugarcane yellow leaf virus on growth and sugar yield of sugarcane. J Gen Plant Pathol 75:288–296
Lehrer AT, Yan S-L, Fontaniella B, ElSayed A, Komor E (2010) Carbohydrate composition of sugarcane cultivars that are resistant or susceptible to sugarcane yellow leaf virus. J Gen Plant Pathol 76:62–68
Leu LS (1972) Freeing sugarcane from mosaic virus by apical meristem and tissue culture. Taiwan Sugar Exp Stn Rep 57:57–63
Lin YH, Gao SJ, Damaj MB, Fu HY, Chen RK, Mirkov TE (2014) Genome characterization of sugarcane yellow leaf virus from China reveals a novel recombinant genotype. Arch Virol 159:1421–1429
Lockhart BEL, Cronjé CPR (2000) Yellow leaf syndrome. In: Rott P, Bailey RA, Comstock JC, Croft BJ, Saumtally AS (eds) A guide to sugarcane diseases. CIRAD-ISSCT, Montpellier, pp 291–295
Lopes JRS, Vega J, Gonçalves MC, Krugner R, Navas SM (1997) Aphid transmission of a virus associated with sugarcane yellow leaf disease. Fitopatologia Bras 22:335 (abstract)
Maia LG, Gonaclaves MC, Arruda P, Vega J (2000) Molecular evidence that Sugarcane yellow leaf virus is a member of the Luteoviridae family. Arch Virol 45:1009–1019
Matsuoka S, Meneghin SP (1999) Yellow leaf syndrome and alleged pathogens: Causal, not causal relationship. Proc Int Soc Sugar Cane Technol Congress 23:382–389
Mayo MA, Ziegler-Graff V (1996) Molecular biology of luteoviruses. Adv Virus Res 46:413–460
Meinzer FC, Plaut Z, Saliendra NZ (1994) Carbon isotope discrimination, gas exchange and growth of sugarcane cultivars under salinity. Plant Physiol 104:521–526
Moonan F, Mirkov TE (2002) Analyses of genotypic diversity among North, South, and Central American isolates of Sugarcane yellow leaf virus: evidence for Colombian origins and for intraspecific spatial phylogenetic variation. J Virol 76:1339–1348
Moonan F, Molina J, Mirkov TE (2000) Sugarcane yellow leaf virus: an emerging virus that has evolved by recombination between luteoviral and poleroviral ancestors. Virology 269:156–171
Moore PH (1995) Temporal and spatial regulation of sucrose accumulation in the sugarcane stem. Aust J plant Physiol 22:661–679
Moutia JFY, Saumtally S (1999) Symptomology ofyellow leaf syndrome and detection and distribution of sugarcane yellow leaf virus in Mauritius. Proc Int Soc Sugar Cane Technol 23:355–364
Nagai M, Sakoda Y, Mori M, Hayashi M, Kida H, Akashi H (2003) Insertion of a cellular sequence and RNA recombination in the structural protein coding region of cytopathogenic bovine viral diarrhea virus. J Gen Virol 84:447–452
Neuhaus H, Stitt M (1990) Control analysis of photosynthate partitioning: impact of reduced activity of ADP-glucose pyrophosphorylase or plastid phosphoglucomutase on the fluxes to starch and sucrose in Arabidopsis thaliana L. Heynh. Planta 182:445–454
Olesinski AA, Almon E, Navot N et al (1996) Tissue specific expression of the tobacco mosaic virus movement protein in transgenic potato plants alters plasmodesmal function and carbohydrate partitioning. Plant Physiol 111:541–550
Parmessur Y, Aljanabi S, Saumtally S, Dookun-Saumtally A (2002) Sugarcane yellow leaf virus and sugarcane yellows phytoplasma: elimination by tissue culture. Plant Pathol 51:561–566
Pfeffer S, Dunoyer P, Heim F, Richards KE, Jonard G, Ziegler-Graff V (2002) P0 of beet western yellow virus is a suppressor of posttranscriptional gene silencing. J Virol 76:6815–6824
Ramgareeb S, Snyman SJ, van Antwerpen T, Rutherford RS (2010) Elimination of virus and rapid propagation of disease-free sugarcane (Saccharum spp. cultivar NCo376) using apical meristem culture. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 100:175–181
Rassaby L, Girard J-C, Lemaire O et al (2004) Spread of Sugarcane yellow leaf virus in sugarcane plants and fields on the island of Réunion. Plant Pathol 53:117–125
Rassaby L, Girard JC, Letourmy P et al (2003) Impact of sugarcane yellow leaf virus on sugarcane yield and juice quality in Réunion Island. Eur J Plant Pathol 109:459–466
Roossinck MJ (1997) Mechanisms of plant virus evolution. Annu Rev Phytopathol 35:191–209
Roossinck MJ, Schneider WL (2006) Mutant clouds and occupation of sequence space in plant RNA viruses. Curr Topics Microbiol Immunol 299:337–348
Sadowy E, Maasen A, Juszczuk M (2001) The ORF0 product of potato leafroll virus is indispensable for virus accumulation. J Gen Virol 82:1529–1532
Scagliusi SMM, Lockhart BEL (2000) Transmission, characterization, and serology of a luteovirus associated with yellow leaf syndrome of sugarcane. Phytopathology 90:120–124
Schenck S (1990) Yellow leaf syndrome a new sugarcane disease. Annual Report, Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association, pp 38–39
Schenck S (2001) Sugarcane yellow leaf syndrome: history and current concepts. In: Rao GP, Ford RE, Tosic M, Teakle DS (eds) Sugarcane pathology, vol II., Virus and phytoplasma diseasesScience, Enfield, pp 25–35
Schenck S, Hu JS, Lockhart BEL (1997) Use of a tissue blot immunoassay to determine the distribution of sugarcane yellow leaf virus in Hawaii. Sugar Cane 4:5–8
Schenck S, Lehrer AT (2000) Factors affecting the transmission and spread of Sugarcane yellow leaf virus. Plant Dis 84:1085–1088
Schmitz J, Stussi-Garaud C, Tacke E, Prüfer D, Rohde W, Rohfritsch O (1997) In situ localization of the putative movement protein (pr17) from potato leafroll luteovirus (PLRV) in infected and transgenic potato plants. Virology 235:311–322
Singh BU, Padmaja PG, Seetharama N (2004) Biology and management of the sugarcane aphid, Melanaphis sacchari (Zehntner) (Homoptera: Aphididae), in sorghum: a review. Crop Prot 23:739–755
Smith GR, Borg Z, Lockhart BEL, Braithwaite KS, Gibbs MJ (2000) Sugarcane yellow leaf virus: a novel member of the Luteoviridae that probably arose by interspecies recombination. J Gen Virol 81:1865–1869
Sztuba-Solińska J, Urbanowicz A, Figlerowicz M, Bujarski JJ (2011) RNA-RNA recombination in plant virus replication and evolution. Annu Rev Phytopathol 49:415–443
Van derWilk F, Houterman P, Molthoff J et al (1997) Expression of the potato leaf roll virus ORF0 induces viral-disease-like symptoms in transgenic potato plants. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 10:153–159
Vega J, Scagliusi SMM, Ulian EC (1997) Sugarcane yellow leaf disease in Brazil: Evidence of association with a luteovirus. Plant Dis 81:21–26
Villanueva RT, Brewer M, Way MO et al (2014) Sugarcane aphid: a new pest of sorghum. Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, College Station
Viswanathan R, Balamuralikrishnan M, Karuppaiah R (2008) Identification of three genotypes of sugarcane yellow leaf virus causing yellow leaf disease from India and their molecular characterization. Virus Gen 37:368–379
Viswanathan R, Chinnaraja C, Malathi P et al (2014) Impact of Sugarcane yellow leaf virus (ScYLV) infection on physiological efficiency and growth parameters of sugarcane under tropical climatic conditions in India. Acta Physiol Plant 36:1805–1822
Wagih ME, Gordon GH, Ryan CC, Adkins SW (1995) Development of an axillary bud culture technique for Fiji disease virus elimination in sugar cane. Aust J Bot 43:135–143
Walkey DGA, Payne CJ (1990) The reaction of two lettuce cultivars to mixed infection by beet western yellows virus, lettuce mosaic virus and cucumber mosaic virus. Plant Pathol 39:156–160
Wang MQ, XuD L, Li R, Zhou GH (2012) Genotype identification and genetic diversity of Sugarcane yellow leaf virus in China. Plant Pathol 61:986–993
Wang QC, Valkonen JPT (2008) Efficient elimination of sweet potato little leaf phytoplasma from sweet potato by cryotherapy of shoot tips. Plant Pathol 57:338–347
Worobey M, Holmes EC (1999) Evolutionary aspects of recombination in RNA viruses. J Gen Virol 80:2535–2543
Yan S-L, Lehrer AT, Hajirezaei M-R, Springer A, Komor E (2009) Modulation of carbohydrate metabolism and chloroplast structure in sugarcane leaves which were infected by sugarcane yellow leaf virus (SCYLV). Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 73:78–87
Zaccomer B, Haenni AL, Macaya G (1995) The remarkable variety of plant RNA virus genomes. J Gen Virol 76:231–247
Zhang Y, Primavesi LF, Ihurreea D et al (2009) Inhibition of SNF1-related protein kinase activity and regulation of metabolic pathways by trehalose-6-phosphate. Plant Physiol 149:1860–1871
Zhu YJ, Lim STS, Schenck S, Arcinas A, Komor E (2010) RT-PCR and quantitative real-time RT-PCR detection of sugarcane yellow leaf virus (SCYLV) in symptomatic and asymptomatic plants of Hawaiian sugarcane cultivars and the relation of SCYLV to yield. Eur J Plant Pathol 127:263–273
Zhu YJ, McCafferty H, Osterman G, Lim S, Agbayani R, Lehrer A, Schenck S, Komor E (2010) Genetic transformation with untranslatable coat protein gene of sugarcane yellow leaf virus reduces virus titers in sugarcane. Transgenic Res 20:503–512
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
ElSayed, A.I., Komor, E., Boulila, M. et al. Biology and management of sugarcane yellow leaf virus: an historical overview. Arch Virol 160, 2921–2934 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-015-2618-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00705-015-2618-5