| Literature DB >> 31862945 |
Fabio Quaglino1, Francesco Sanna2, Abdelhameed Moussa1, Monica Faccincani3, Alessandro Passera1, Paola Casati1, Piero Attilio Bianco1, Nicola Mori4.
Abstract
Bois noir, a disease of the grapevine yellows complex, is associated with 'Candidatus Phytoplasma solani' and transmitted to grapevines in open fields by the cixiids Hyalesthes obsoletus and Reptalus panzeri. In vine-growing areas where the population density of these vectors is low within the vineyard, the occurrence of bois noir implies the existence of alternative vectors. The aim of this study was to identify alternative vectors through screening of the Auchenorrhyncha community, phytoplasma typing by stamp gene sequence analyses, and transmission trials. During field activities, conducted in Northern Italy in a vineyard where the bois noir incidence was extremely high, nine potential alternative insect vectors were identified according to high abundance in the vineyard agro-ecosystem, high infection rate, and harbouring phytoplasma strains characterized by stamp gene sequence variants found also in symptomatic grapevines. Transmission trials coupled with molecular analyses showed that at least eight species (Aphrodes makarovi, Dicranotropis hamata, Dictyophara europaea, Euscelis incisus, Euscelidius variegatus, Laodelphax striatella, Philaenus spumarius, and Psammotettix alienus/confinis) are alternative vectors of 'Candidatus Phytoplasma solani' to grapevines. These novel findings highlight that bois noir epidemiology in vineyard agro-ecosystems is more complex than previously known, opening up new perspectives in the disease management.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31862945 PMCID: PMC6925216 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-56076-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Captures and infection rate of CaPsol potential insect vectors in the examined vineyard in 2013 and 2014.
| Family | Subfamily | Insect | 2013 | 2014 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of captured specimens | Number of pools | Number of CaPsol infected pools | Proportion of infected pools | Number of captured specimens | Number of pools | Number of CaPsol infected pools | Proportion of infected pools | |||
| Cixiidae | Cixiinae | 2 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Cixiidae | Cixiinae | 100 | 44 | 13 | 30 | 113 | 43 | 10 | 23 | |
| Cixiidae | Cixiinae | 8 | 6 | — | — | 4 | 2 | — | — | |
| Cixiidae | Cixiinae | 2 | 2 | — | — | 4 | 4 | — | — | |
| Delphacidae | Asiracinae | 6 | 6 | 2 | 33 | — | — | — | — | |
| Delphacidae | Delphacinae | 31 | 15 | 2 | 13 | 12 | 7 | 1 | 14 | |
| Delphacidae | Delphacinae | 121 | 56 | 6 | 11 | 71 | 30 | 2 | 7 | |
| Delphacidae | Delphacinae | 20 | 9 | — | — | 81 | 24 | 2 | 8 | |
| Delphacidae | Kelisiinae | 2 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Delphacidae | Stenocraninae | — | — | — | — | 2 | 2 | — | — | |
| Dictyopharidae | Dictyopharinae | 47 | 47 | — | — | 59 | 59 | 12 | 20 | |
| Flatidae | Flatinae | 68 | 35 | 9 | 26 | 79 | 41 | 1 | 2 | |
| Cercopidae | Cercopinae | 120 | 120 | 2 | 2 | — | — | — | — | |
| Cercopidae | Cercopinae | 12 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Aphrophoridae | Aphrophorinae | 93 | 28 | 2 | 7 | 91 | 53 | 14 | 26 | |
| Membracidae | Centrotinae | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Membracidae | Smiliinae | 1 | 1 | — | — | 3 | 3 | 1 | 33 | |
| Cicadellidae | Agallinae | — | — | — | — | 5 | 4 | — | — | |
| Cicadellidae | Aphrodinae | 29 | 21 | 5 | 24 | 2 | 2 | — | — | |
| Cicadellidae | Cicadellinae | 43 | 35 | 6 | 17 | 142 | 123 | 21 | 17 | |
| Cicadellidae | Cicadellinae | 3 | 3 | 2 | 67 | — | — | — | — | |
| Cicadellidae | Deltocephalinae | 13 | 12 | 1 | 8 | — | — | — | — | |
| Cicadellidae | Deltocephalinae | 2 | 1 | — | — | 2 | 1 | — | — | |
| Cicadellidae | Deltocephalinae | 1 | 1 | — | — | 6 | 3 | — | — | |
| Cicadellidae | Deltocephalinae | 25 | 24 | 2 | 8 | 33 | 9 | 1 | 10 | |
| Cicadellidae | Deltocephalinae | 30 | 15 | 2 | 13 | 11 | 10 | 1 | 10 | |
| Cicadellidae | Deltocephalinae | 58 | 31 | 3 | 10 | 21 | 20 | 1 | 5 | |
| Cicadellidae | Deltocephalinae | 5 | 5 | 1 | 20 | — | — | — | — | |
| Cicadellidae | Deltocephalinae | 5 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Cicadellidae | Deltocephalinae | 4 | 4 | — | — | 13 | 13 | 1 | 8 | |
| Cicadellidae | Deltocephalinae | 2 | 2 | — | — | 10 | 5 | 1 | 20 | |
| Cicadellidae | Deltocephalinae | — | — | — | — | 17 | 9 | — | — | |
| Cicadellidae | Deltocephalinae | 5 | 4 | — | — | 1 | 1 | — | — | |
| Cicadellidae | Deltocephalinae | 4 | 2 | — | — | 5 | 3 | — | — | |
| Cicadellidae | Deltocephalinae | 2 | 2 | — | — | 1 | 1 | — | — | |
| Cicadellidae | Deltocephalinae | 5 | 2 | 1 | 50 | — | — | — | — | |
| Cicadellidae | Deltocephalinae | — | — | — | — | 1 | 1 | — | — | |
| Cicadellidae | Deltocephalinae | — | — | — | — | 8 | 8 | 6 | 75 | |
| Cicadellidae | Deltocephalinae | 30 | 12 | — | — | 81 | 34 | 4 | 12 | |
| Cicadellidae | Deltocephalinae | 4 | 1 | 1 | 100 | 8 | 8 | 2 | 25 | |
| Cicadellidae | Deltocephalinae | 5 | 5 | 1 | 20 | 9 | 5 | 1 | 20 | |
| Cicadellidae | Idiocerinae | 5 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Cicadellidae | Macropsinae | 70 | 25 | — | — | 1 | 1 | — | — | |
| Cicadellidae | Macropsinae | 13 | 6 | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Cicadellidae | Megophthalminae | 4 | 4 | 2 | 50 | — | — | — | — | |
| Cicadellidae | Typhlocybinae | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Cicadellidae | Typhlocybinae | 9 | 5 | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Caliscelidae | Caliscelinae | 7 | 7 | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Total | 1018 | 621 | 63 | 10 | 896 | 529 | 82 | 16 | ||
Stamp sequence variants of CaPsol identified in symptomatic grapevines and potential insect vectors.
| Species | Year | CaPsol infected pools | Sequenced | CaPsol strain ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GuSt1 (St5) | GuSt2 (St11) | GuSt3 (St19) | GuSt4 (St21) | GuSt5 (St30) | GuSt6 (St36) | ||||
| 2013 | 29 | 29 | 15 | 5 | 4 | — | 5 | — | |
| 2014 | 25 | 25 | 12 | 7 | 4 | — | 2 | — | |
| 2013 | 13 | 5 | 4 | — | — | — | 1 | — | |
| 2014 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 1 | — | 1 | 1 | — | |
| 2013 | 2 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2013 | 2 | 1 | — | 1 | — | — | — | — | |
| 2014 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2013 | 6 | 3 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2014 | 2 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2014 | 2 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2014 | 12 | 5 | 2 | — | — | — | 2 | 1 | |
| 2013 | 9 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2014 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2013 | 2 | 2 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2013 | 2 | 2 | — | — | 2 | — | — | — | |
| 2014 | 14 | 4 | 3 | — | — | — | 1 | — | |
| 2014 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2013 | 5 | 3 | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2013 | 6 | 2 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2014 | 21 | 5 | 3 | — | — | — | 2 | — | |
| 2013 | 2 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | 1 | |
| 2013 | 2 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2014 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | 1 | |
| 2013 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | 1 | |
| 2013 | 2 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2014 | 1 | 1 | — | — | 1 | — | — | — | |
| 2013 | 3 | 2 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2014 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2013 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | 1 | |
| 2014 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | — | 1 | — | |
| 2014 | 1 | 1 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2013 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2014 | 6 | 2 | 1 | — | 1 | — | — | — | |
| 2014 | 4 | 3 | 2 | — | — | — | 1 | — | |
| 2013 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2014 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2013 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2014 | 1 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
| 2013 | 2 | — | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
Figure 1Unrooted phylogenetic tree inferred from stamp gene nucleotide sequences of BNp strains representative of stamp sequence variants identified in this study (Table 2) and previously described[19]. The evolutionary history was inferred using the Neighbor-Joining method. The optimal tree with the sum of branch length = 0.33585582 is shown. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (1000 replicates) are shown next to the branches. The tree is drawn to scale, with branch lengths in the same units as those of the evolutionary distances used to infer the phylogenetic tree. The evolutionary distances were computed using the Jukes-Cantor method and are in the units of the number of base substitutions per site. The analysis involved 64 nucleotide sequences. All ambiguous positions were removed for each sequence pair. There were a total of 495 positions in the final dataset. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA6. Details on the distribution of CaPsol stamp sequence variants in BNp hosts are available in Fig. S1.
Identification of CaPsol insect vectors by transmission trials to grapevine and molecular analyses in 2015 and 2016. Sympt, potted grapevines with typical BN symptoms (yellowing and downwards rolling of leaves and lack of cane lignifications).
| Species | Trial year | Number of insects | Number of grapevines | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Infected | Sequenced | CaPsol strain (number) | Total | Infected (CaPsol strain) | |||
| October (same year) | July (following year) | |||||||
| 2015 | 15 | 8 | 8 | St5 (8) | 2 | 2 (St5) | 2 (St5) | |
| 2016 | 24 | 22 | 4 | St5 (3); St19 (1) | 2 | — | 1 (St5) Sympt | |
| 2015 | 120 | 5 | 3 | St5 (3) | 3 | — | 2 (St5) | |
| 2016 | 4 | — | — | — | 1 | — | 1 | |
| 2015 | 46 | — | — | — | 2 | — | — | |
| 2016 | 16 | 12 | 6 | St5 (4); St11 (1); St19 (1) | 2 | — | 1 (St5) | |
| 2016 | 26 | 25 | 5 | St5 (5) | 3 | — | 1 (St5) | |
| 2016 | 20 | 18 | 3 | St5 (3) | 4 | — | 2 (St5) | |
| 2016 | 5 | 4 | 2 | St5 (2) | 2 | — | 1 (St5) | |
| 2015 | 16 | — | — | — | 1 | — | — | |
| 2016 | 15 | 13 | — | — | 1 | — | — | |
| 2015 | 12 | 4 | 4 | St5 (3); St19 (1) | 3 | — | 3 (St5) | |
| 2016 | 20 | 18 | 12 | St5 (11); St19 (1) | 3 | — | 3 (St5) Sympt | |
| 2015 | 10 | — | — | — | 3 | — | — | |
| 2016 | 52 | 51 | 12 | St5 (12) | 5 | 1 (St5) | 2 (St5) | |
| 2015 | 100 | — | — | — | 3 | — | — | |
| 2016 | 49 | 43 | 16 | St5 (14); St11 (1); St19 (1) | 4 | — | 2 (St5) | |
| No insect (control) | 2015 | — | — | — | — | 3 | — | — |
| 2016 | — | — | — | — | 5 | — | — | |
Identification of the plants present in the gut of the insect species tested in CaPsol transmission trials by rbcL gene amplification and sequence analysis.
| Species | Number of insects | Plant in the insect gut | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyzed | Number of insects | GenBank closest relative plant (Acc. No.) | % Identity | ||
| 23 | 1 | 1 | 99 | ||
| 8 | 2 | 1 | 99 | ||
| 1 | 97 | ||||
| 10 | — | — | — | — | |
| 10 | 6 | 3 | 99 | ||
| 1 | 98 | ||||
| 1 | 98 | ||||
| 1 | 99 | ||||
| 16 | 11 | 7 | 99 | ||
| 1 | 98 | ||||
| 1 | 96 | ||||
| 1 | 94 | ||||
| 1 | 98 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 95 | ||
| 24 | 8 | 5 | 98 | ||
| 1 | 98 | ||||
| 1 | 87 | ||||
| 1 | 95 | ||||
| 22 | 20 | 10 | 99 | ||
| 2 | 98 | ||||
| 1 | 96 | ||||
| 1 | 93 | ||||
| 1 | 95 | ||||
| 1 | 99 | ||||
| 1 | 81 | ||||
| 1 | 96 | ||||
| 1 | 96 | ||||
| 1 | 98 | ||||
| 17 | 10 | 6 | 98 | ||
| 2 | 98 | ||||
| 1 | 96 | ||||
| 1 | 78 | ||||
| 23 | — | — | — | — | |
Host plants, hosting/vectoring CaPsol, occurrence, and biology of alternative CaPsol vectors.
| Species | Host plant | Survival on grapevine | Host/vector of CaPsol | Abundance, development cycle, adult presence in Northern Italian vineyards |
|---|---|---|---|---|
(Boh., 1847) | Poaceae[ | not available | host[ | Uncommon – 2 generations/year. Overwintering as nymphal stage. Adult presence: mid-April - end of October[ |
(Fall., 1826) | Poaceae, Juncaceae, Cyperaceae[ | not available | host[ | Common – 2 generations/year. Overwintering as egg stage. Adult presence: beginning of June - end of November[ |
(L., 1767) | Polyphagous[ | 2–6 days[ | host[ | Common – 1 generation/year. Overwintering as egg stage. Adult presence: end of June - beginning of October[ |
(L., 1758) | Polyphagous[ | >10 days[ | host[ | Common – 1 generation/year. Overwintering as egg stage. Adult presence: May - beginning of November[ |
Zachv., 1948 | not available | host[ | Uncommon – 1 generation/year. Overwintering as egg stage. Adult presence: End of May - beginning of November[ | |
(Kbm., 1858) | Poaceae, Fabaceae[ | 3 days[ | vector[ | Common – 3 generations/year. Overwintering as nymphal stage. Adult presence: February - mid of November[ |
(Kbm., 1858) | Poaceae[ | 3 days[ | vector[ | Common – 3 generations/year. Overwintering as adult stage. Adult presence: Mid of April - October[ |
(Dhlb, 1850) | Poaceae[ | not available | host[ | Common – 2/3 generations/year. Overwintering as egg stage. Adult presence: Mid of June - beginning of October[ |
(Dhlb, 1850) | Poaceae[ | not available | — | Common – 2/3 generations/year. Overwintering as egg stage. Adult presence: Mid of June - beginning of October[ |