ˆ˙ ˘ ˇplantprotection.scu.ac.ir/article_12396_82d10cc84da7036f055678f2b5... · p farzadfar and...

13
71 ) ( 39 3 !" 1395 !" - #$ % &’ ($ $% &’( )*!+ 1 ,-. / $01* 2 * 1 - 05%$ ’6 . 7 87$ 5%$ ’6 . 8 9 :.8; <5%$ )%8!% 2 - * )* +*& 9 :.8; <5%$ 5%$ ’6 . 8 5%$ : )%8!% ([email protected]) ::>!$ ?!; 29 / 01 / 95 :B8!C" ?!; 01 / 08 / 95 +,- ./* 01 234 ) Brassica napus L. ( 7 8&1& 0 9 + .$ 12 = +$ . ) Cauliflower mosaic virus, CaMV ( ) #$ Turnip mosaic virus, TuMV ( +> 0 % % $ . +?/4 + , @ - )/ % A4 % B*C % 4 % D*E F GH $ %IF +1& I& .04 JK L@EF 13 %IF CaMV &’ ($ .$ NO B$ PC$ +$ & Q 1& R " DS 3 . E/ 9 . F +NO T !" TuMV CaMV & U’ !" = V/& .$ 4 &’ ($ 1& +" 04 V %IF % - *K 04*K ! $ Q 3 / 4 0W*& . +X : =R =0@ Brassica napus @ :8! EF’ % ) Brassica napus L. ( . ’% ,!%>% . : 0G : 8! EF’ H!% )%8!% $ I0JK $L 6 / 93 )% 7 % I0JK 175 % $+8. I’ $ H; :’% ) Anonymous, 2014 .( 8!’ 65 5 % $ % OP0JK Q81 L . O>+ %8( $17 $%$ (Walsh and Tomlinson, 1985) 8. ) $ . 12 . $( 98! % $ . $!% ’ R5+ ) % 6. & S!%0 98! T Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) &U S!%0 98! Turnip mosaic virus (TuMV) 98! .8V $ 6( 6UW Beet western yellows virus (BWYV) $J7(% 8X5 % 87. :% % 5%$0Y8. ) Coutts and Jones, 2000; Farzadfar and Pourrahim, 2014; Shahraeen, 2012; Tabarestani et al., 2010 .( 98! & S!%0 T ) CaMV ( Z05[ H7%$ . $ )% % P$ %5% . $L 8000 . :\ 50 ]; /6 Caulimovirus . ) Hull and Shepherd, 1977 &!^ .( CaMV _% $ 8; 0. ) Brassicaceae ( S!%0 8 T <a0;0 . . b0- $0a+ $ &!^ H!%

Upload: votruc

Post on 30-Jul-2018

214 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

71

������� �� ����)� ������ ��� �(39 � �3 ���!" 1395

���� ���� ���� � �� ���� ��� ������� ����� �� ���� ������ �� �!" �-

��� ������� � �#�$ ������� ����� %�� �� &�'�� (���$

$%� &'( )*!+1,-. / � $01*� �2*

1- �0��5%$ ���� �'6� �� �. �7�� �87�$ ������ ���5%$ ���� �'6� �� �. �8� � �9��� :�.8; <�5%$)%8!%

2 - * )��*� +��*��&9��� :�.8; <�5%$ ������� ���5%$ ���� �'6� �� �. �8� ���5%$ :)%8!% � ([email protected])

::>!�$ ?!�; 29/01/95 :B8!C" ?!�;01/08/95

+��,-

.�/*� ���� 01���� 234)Brassica napus L.( ��7� �8&�1& 0���� 9���� +��� .�$�� ��12 �����

=���� �� +�$ .������ ������� �����) ��Cauliflower mosaic virus, CaMV ������� ����� � (

) �#�$Turnip mosaic virus, TuMV (+>�� 0���� %�� �� %�$���� .�� + �?/4� +� �� �,� ���@� ����-

)�/�� %��� A4��� %���� B�*C%�����4���� %�� �� D�*E����� ������ �����F �G�H �� � �$

%�IF ����� ���� ����� ����� ��� ��������� +�1& ��I&� .04� ����� �� ���� �J�K L�@EF 13

���� %�IF �� � CaMV &�'�� (���$ .�$ ������ ��� ������ ��NO B�$ PC�$� +�$ �&� �����

Q�� �� � � ��1& ���R� ����" DS�3 � . �� ��E/� ����� 9�� ����� .��� � ��F �� +�NO

� ���� T��� ������ �� �!" TuMV �CaMV ��& ����� � U��'� �� �!" ����� ���� ���� ���� =

� V��/& .�$ �4�� &�'�� (���$ � � � ��1& +��" 04 �� � ����� V�� %�IF %���� ���� ��- �

�� ��*K ����� � �� 0�4�*K �!� ��$��Q��3 �� �/�� ���� ���4 � 0W*&.

+X�� ������ : =���R� =0���@�Brassica napus

��@�

:��8!� EF'%��� �� )Brassica napus

L.( �. �� '% ,!%�>%�. �:��0G�� :�� 8!� EF' H!%

)%8!% �$ I0JK� $��L6/93 )%��� � �7� �%�

I0JK�175 �%� �� $��+8. I' �$ H; :'%

)Anonymous, 2014 .( 8!' �65� ��5 %���

�$ ��%�� OP0JK� Q81� �� L�� �. � O>+ �

�%8( �$�17�$�%$ (Walsh and Tomlinson,

1985) ��� �8�� �. )�� �$ .12 �. �$( 9�8!�

�� %��� �$ �� �. $�!%�' R5+ )�� �% �� �6�.

&�� S�!%�0� 9�8!� T�Cauliflower mosaic

virus (CaMV) � &U�� S�!%�0� 9�8!�Turnip

mosaic virus (TuMV) � 9�8!� �.8V �$��

�6( ��6UWBeet western yellows virus

(BWYV) �$J7(% 8X5 �% �87��. :� % �%

�5%$�0Y8. )Coutts and Jones, 2000;

Farzadfar and Pourrahim, 2014;

Shahraeen, 2012; Tabarestani et al., 2010 .(

9�8!� &�� S�!%�0�T� )CaMV( Z05[ H7�%$ .

�$)%�% P�$ �%�5% . $��L 8000 �. :\��50� ]�;

/6�Caulimovirus �� ��.)Hull and

Shepherd, 1977 &!^� .(CaMV _�% �$� 8�;

`�0. )Brassicaceae� ( � S�!%�0� ���8�� T�

�� �<a0;0���. . b0�-� ��$0a+ �$ &!^� H!% ��

72

:,-. / � � $%� &'(9�8!� �!%�� S! �. %��� Z(�% ,6�%�...

TuMV ) :'% 8;$0R��Walsh and Tomlinson,

1985; Melcher, 1989 .( $��L27 �7� �50��. -

B�� � �5!" CaMV &a' �� �. $0a+ �� S! �% %�

�� Ic75%�6$ )Shepherd, 1981)+ )�� �$ .( �$

�50�Myzus persicae (Sulzer) �

Brevicoryne brassicae Linnaeus &R� H!8;

T(5� �7Y6� �� 9�8!� H!%���6�. )Walsh and

Tomlinson, 1985 8d�% .(�!%�� � R6; 9�8!� H!%

_�% ��$0a+ �. �$(� `� 8�;0. ���6�. $%�1; �

�1 �% �$���!%��� �50� �$ )+ /6� e�7-� �

�� ��$0a+ $�!% )0;0;) �66�Schoelz and

Shepherd, 1988 .(�. ��$0a+ CaMV � ��� f5�

0 5�� ���5%$ �$�. � $0�. �6V�� �� ; ��+ :'$

50 �g�$�� ,�) �.!Sutic et al., 1999 .(

B�%��� �.!$� �% �$�17�CaMV �% e�7-� hG6�

�� :'$ �$ )%8!%9�8!� H!% i0�� 8<5�5 �� ��. �$

�0�� ) :'%Sohi et al., 2013 .(

%� �% ��!��O�*Y ,� � CaMV I876�

�7�I' H!% �G �% :'% )+ T(5 � �$ O%8�L

T.c�c� Z0 '� $%$ )�5 :�) �5%Edwards et al.,

2008�!%�� Z ; 8<!$ j8G �% .( . 9�8!� H!% �

�7�� 5 Ic75% H!% �. Z�c� �%��� Z(�% H7>! .�6.!

)[ ! 9�8!�_�% �$ :��c� �� `� 8�;0. %�

��`'6� 9�8!� H!% I876� 8�*� �$ �� :'% �8<!$

�� 8kl���. .

`� 8�; )�� ,6�%� �$�17� Oc�cK; �G 0.

8.%8. �$CaMV �'�8. ����� � �5-�� m!%8� �$

�� �� )�5 Oc�cK; H!% n!75 .:'% ,6�%� �� �$

_�%`� 8�; e�7-� �.%8. �$ 0. . 9�8!� H!% 8

�� O�\7� 8<!��!_�% �% �Y8. �$ R6; � ��.� H!%

�. T K7� Z(�% $%05YCaMV :'% �� :>! (Pink et al., 1986; Pink and Walkey,

1988; Provvidenti, 1980; Saunders et

al., 1990; Walkey and Neely, 1980;

Walsh and Tomlinson, 1985(.

�. :��c� /�*"���.%�+ Z(�% �% �Y8. �$ H�6o

�!%�� �Y8. �� ��� 9�8!� H!% � H!% � :'%

�$ :��c��!%�� �. ,6�%� 8<!$ �CaMV �7*��

:'% �� )Agama et al., 2002 pCallaway et

al., 1996 pCecchini et al., 1998 pHapiak et

al., 2008 pTang and Leisner, 1997(.

��6!% �. ��0; . )06� ; �$ %��� ���; Z(�% ,6�%�

)%8!% �.CaMV �7>8<5 �%8( �.!��% $�0��$ �:'% h�cK;

8qL ,6�%� 13 �� %��� ���; &(� )%8!% �$ :���� -

�50� 8.%8. �$CaMV �5-�� m!%8� �$ �� �'�8. .

B�%�� �$ ��6!% �. ��0; . H�6o� �0_L �$�17�

)�� CaMV �TuMV :'% �� ��!; �� �$

)Farzadfar and Pourrahim, 2014 p

Shahraeen, 2012 pTabarestani et al., 2010 .(

)�� ��$0a+ 8.%8. �$ %��� ���; Z(�% ,6�%�

CaMV �TuMV �� �'�8. ��5.

.� � �����

����� ZW�� � ���� ���� � :�� 8!� EF' 8X5 �% �� %��� ���; &(� $��'

�% �5�%$ :� % )%8!% �!%0 � r+ m!%8� . ����' ��8�

�5%$ Oc�cK;�0�� �6V�� � %��� Z(�% .�� :>!�$ �%

� O�\7� :�� )�� sKa ]�; T�� �57*�� � �R. �

I���) �5$0.1 .(

�5* T�� h�cK; H!% �$ �� $\7'% 9�8!� ft6�

:50\�%�� �!%�� CM1841 9�8!�CaMV Z6.

pCa122 )Anderson et al., 19919� . (� �

V00140 � �!%��TuMV .9�� �Ku535893

$0.. .�:50\� �5* �% $\7'% �0X6�%�� CaMV %�7.%

5* � pCa122 �.�!0' Escherichia coli DH5α

Tc76����87�. �% .8; �%Z8\*5�� '^" �� u%8-7'%

�� )Sambrook et al., 1989(. �� '^" /�'

.� ��+ :'$ v8. �.� �� �' ��L8� �$ &U�� ��8.

�!�.�� �5� �% �1.14 v8. �$ �1q0� ��a &!^� ���

73

������� �� ����)� ������ ��� �(39 � �3 ���!" 1395

)���1- ������ %���� ���� B�['1� � ��&L�@EF 9�� +�$

Table1- Name and characteristics of canola varieties evaluated in this study Name of Varieties Farming area Type

Source

Hayola 401 Warm-humid zones Spring Australia

Zafar Warm-humid zones Spring Iran

Eureka (Sary Gol) Warm-humid zones Spring Iran Karaj1 Cool and temperate zones Winter Iran

Karaj2 Cool and temperate zones Winter Iran

Karaj3 Cool and temperate zones Winter Iran

RGS003 Warm-humid zones Spring Germany

Opera Cool and temperate zones Winter Sweden

Talayeh Cool and temperate zones Winter Germany

Licord Cool and temperate zones Winter Germany

Okapi Cool and temperate zones Winter France

SLM046 Cool and temperate zones Winter Germany

Zarfam Cool and temperate zones Winter Iran

�!��5� �� ��� ���. �n!��; �$ S� 7*�' &!^�

v8. :>! B87*� �!P. �)Lebeurier et al.,

1980 ��!; �%8. .(v8. �$ �� I1> 9�8!� �

�$ �&U��)%v8. �% T� �%�!P. � �!��5� ��5

u%8-7'% ��) ��Dellaporta et al., 1983 .(

8��5� ,6�%� �!R5 &�L �$ �%8 ��" �%µl 15 T��

µl5/7 b0�-�x2 �" $�+�') �+Ampliqon �(µl

5/0 :X�V �% pmol10 �8��V+ :\�CaMV-

p6- forward )5´-

GAGAACATAGAAAAACTCCTCAT-

3´ ( �CaMV-p6-reverse )5´-

GGATGAAGTTCAACCTATCTG-3´(�

µl5/0�$ �%)%:X�V . �� u%8-7'% �% ng/µl50 �$

��58. . h.F� 8��!'0�8; <7'$ºC 94 .� O��3

��c�($30 T�� �Y8WºC 94 .� O��1 ��c�($ºC 55

.� O��40 ���5kºC 72 .� O��1 m*. �%8. � �c�($

�!R5ºC 72 . ���$� O��5 Z�5% �c�($ ) ��Shams-

bakhsh et al., 2007(.

���� +��� %��4 + �!"

.� 8.%8. �$ %��� ���; Z(�% �.!��% �0X6�CaMV

x8G `a( �$ T!�07�> ,!��+y0�. T�� �

�>$J;�5-�� m!%8� �$ �' ,!��+ H!% �$ .�� %8�%

��L Z%�� 8 y0�.13 ,� �$ %��� ���; &(�

. 8<!$ ��!��+ �$ .�� �7>8� 8X5 �$ �%8�;� �0X6�

b0�-� ��$0a+ 8.%8. �$ %��� Z(�% �.!��%CaMV �

TuMV T!�07�> ,!��+ z^�� x8G `a( �$

�>$J;Z�5% ,!��+ H!% �$ .��13 %��� ���; &(�

�$ 9 )�� .�5�� �'�8. �%8�; :�� �% /" �$

)%��� :�a8" � :�" �yY ��*� :t*5 ��L �$ �

�' ��L8�8.�� 9�8!� .�!��5� ���5. .� �%8�% �0X6�

�!� �I�% ,!��+ $0a+ &U�� �� v8. �J� . �5�

�.CaMV ) &�'7" O\*> 8>. �$2/7pH Z�5% (

�%8�; ,� �% � :>8� y0�. 8 �$ $0�0�4 . �%8�;

�!� 9�8!� � �5�� �5�2 O\*> 8>. . R6; �(. �%8�;

�!� &�'7" Z�$ ,!��+ �$ .�5�� �5� �J� &U�� ��

�. $0a+CaMV �. $0a+ &U�� �TuMV �$ )��

) &�'7" O\*> 8>.2/7 pH�!� )�� �. ( .�5�� �5�

�!� �% /" )�� �$ �5� ��$22 ���$90�*�' �$

m!%8�16 �%8( ��!�; :�' :� �!6��� :�'-

; �� ��� &!^� .�67>8�35 �!� �% /" ��� �5�

:tk .�5�� ,!��+ �% Z%�� 8 :'$ �%8�; �.�$ &�

.��

B�$ PC�$ 9��\F��NO

74

:,-. / � � $%� &'(9�8!� �!%�� S! �. %��� Z(�% ,6�%�...

%��� �� �$ &!^� O�� {Y� �.CaMV

�5�' 9'%8. 8 5�$ Tomilnson Walsh and

)1985 (Z�5%��8\g 8 5 . �&!^� )��.p S! 8 5�

v8. �$ e�1q S*�" � �$�� ��t� ��5�� �

v8. �$ e�1q �6��� v8t���!P. �p �$ 8 5�

v8. �$ m'07� S*�" � �$�� ��t� ��5�� �

v8. �$ m'07� �6��� v8t���!P. �p �' 8 5�

8. �$ �!�� S*�"v � �!�� �$�� ��t� ��5�� �

v8. �$ m'07� �6��� v8t���!P. �p �RW 8 5�

v8. �$ �!�� S*�" � �$�� ��t� ��5�� �

v8. �$ �!�� �6��� v8t�� H�6o .�!P. �

8 5 �%8. �% TgL &!^� �$b0�-� ��$0a+

TuMV � CaMV �� �$ 9�8!� �$ �'�8. �$

8 5 �% %��� �$Jafari et al. (2016) .�� $\7'%

���R� ����" �� ����� �� �!" ������

.� Z(�% )�� �$ 9�8!� )%��� �| � �*!c� �0X6�

%�!P% )0��+ �% %��� B�� �% � &�c7*� � }!��5'

�>8G�$ $\7'%�75+ .���$. H!% �$ $\7'% $�0� �

�% )0��+ :�8� DSMZ ) a+��R; �75+ � �� �$.

�75+ � ���0" �. �;\*> H�a�a+ &!�5+ �. TJ7� �$.

:t*51:500 h.F� $\7'% $�0� �8>. .�5�� h�(�

.�07'$T 1a% DSMZ �50 5 .�5�� ��R; �% ��%$8.

v8. 9�8!� rC� )%��� � �� Z�5% %��� �!P. �

u0� I0G �$nm 405 <7'$ . )%0Y%�!P%2020

Anthos 0' �0�� :Y'~ /! �%�5% �8�� ��a5+ .��

`a( �$ ��05 rC� )%��� �% TgL n!75 y0�. x8G-

� :>8� Z�5% �>$J; T�� )%��� �� O�0g H!�.

y0�. �% Z%�� 8 �% TgL )�� rC� ,!��+ �

.�5�� %8�% %�!P% :��" S! �$ �5-��

�� + � ��!�&"

��a5+ ���+ � $\7'% . ,��" H!% �$ ��5 $�0�

Z85 �% �%�>%SPSS Z�5%. � ��� H�<5�� �*!c� �0X6�

$%$ I 7L% EF' �$ H�5%$ )0��+ �% ��+ :'�. �

%5 $\7'%.�� . H�6o � )�� �<7*t �'�8. �0X6�

�% �� �$ 9�8!� rC� )%��� � &!^� O�� {Y�

�$ )0'8�" �<7*t )0��+Z85 �%�>%SPSS $\7'%

.��

]E� � V��/&

,6�%� 8qL �1aF� �$13 ]�;05[ %��� ���;

�5-�� m!%8� �$ . � �%8�; �$ ��!��+8.%8. �$

CaMV �!%�� CM1841 �'�8.�� .�!%��

CM1841 S*�" �8� �$ ��![0a0�. ]�; 8X5 �%

�ctG �\-� &!^� /&!^��� ��6. �% TgL n!75 .$0�

�!%�� �5[0��> ��a5+ �5%8!% �CaMV $%$ )�5 -

:'% ��`�V% �!%�� . ]�;0�. �8� �$ �5%8!% �

�%8( &!^� &!^��5�%$ )Farzadfar et al., 2014( .

H!%8.6. H!% �$,��" �!%�� �% �� �� $\7'% �%

�5[0��> :Y�$ S! �8� �. h�17�$0..

�$ �.!��% H���$ � :�Rt!$�% �$ �.!��% H�a�%

� ).+ I'1394 :tk O%8 5 .�� Z�5% &!^� �% ��

CaMV �$ �� e!81; O%8 5 9'%8. %��� Z(�% �$

O%8��U; � � . ��t( �1aF� Z�5%) :>8�Walsh

and Tomlinson, 1985.( ��t( �1aF� �$ %8!�

�% ��5 �� :tk &!^����!% NVRS 9�8!�

CaMV �� $0.� %��� �� �$ �<a0;0� $�!% `�0

�� ���aL �$ $0��!%�� CM1841 %� � !^� H�6W

� 5 )�5 %��� �� �$ )�5 &!^� �'�8. n!75 .�$

�� $%$14 �!� �% /" ��� �$ �1q0� ��a &!^� ��5�

�!� v8. �� �5� 13 ��� %��� &(��� &!^� .

) S*�"mottlingv8. �$ ( Z(�% Z ; �5�� �

P0! Z(�% �$ &!^� H!% �% �� ���401��' �-

u8� �T�1u8� �2 �RGS003 O�� . Z>�� �

�87��.)! 5 ��t� &!^� Z(�% � �$ .�� �$��

��� P0! Z(�% �$ &!^� H!% �% ��401��' �-

u8� �T�1 �RGS003 �87��. O�� . � 8;$��

:tk Z(�% 8!' �. :t*5 $��L .��25 �!� �% /" ��� -

�5�� H��� &!^�v8t�� )�� H!% �� �� ���

P0! Z(�% �$ ��5 &!^�401��' �u8� �T�1 �

75

������� �� ����)� ������ ��� �(39 � �3 ���!" 1395

u8�2 �RGS003 ,�. O�� . � 8;$�� 8\� � �8;

�8�� .^� &!}� �$ �� �. �% Z%���� )��

�!� 8>. . �� ��� �5�� �5���5 T�� ) 1 h.F� .(

O�^G% . �$ �� �!%�% I���2 �% TgL n!75 ��

�� )�5 %� H�5%$ )0��+ ��$13 8. �� �'�8. &(�

9'%:tk O%8 5 ��35 �!� �% /" ����5� :\ �.

�ctG �8� ��6.5���ctG H!% �$ .� &(� ��6.

P0!401 u8� &(� � &!^� H�<5�� H!87��.3

H!87 � ���$ &!^� H�<5���5$%$ )�5 %� H!% �$ .

&!^� �RW ; S! O%8 5 Z(�% Z ; �1aF�CaMV

P0! &(� )�� H!% �$ �� �5$%$ )�5 %�401 ,�.

$%�1; H!8;���$ �%8�; �$ %� �RW ! �' $0Y �

u8� Z(�% � :�%$3��!^G �%8"�% � � �"��%

SLM046 �RW ! �' ���$ �%8�; )�� �$ %� �

�5$%�5 )�5 $0Y�� i0 �� �$ . �'�8. �� :\� )%0;

)�5 &!^� �� $%$ P0!401 u8� �1 9*L H!8;

� Z(�%u8�3 � SLM046 �. T K7�CaMV

.�5$0.

v8. �% %�!P% )0��+ n!75 %��� )�� �!P. �

35 �!� �% /" ��� �5�(�% �� $%$ )�5%��� Z �.10

�ctG �8� ��6.�5�� I��� )2 �8� H!% �$ .( ��6.

��05 rC� H�<5�� . $�0��a &(�94/2 &(� �

SLM046 ��05 rC� H�<5�� .96/1 .� `�;8;

,�. H!87 � � H!8; )%����67�%$ %� ��05 rC�

I���)2 8 &a' )�� H�6o .( 8>. . �� &(�

� �; &�'7" O\*> ���5$0.� H�!" rC� H�<5��-

�8; )�5 &(� ) $0a+ )�� . �*!c� �$ �� �5$%$

H�5%$ )0��+ n!75 �. ��0; . I 7L% EF' �$5%

�61� j^7Y% I���) �67�%$ 8<!��! . ��%$3.( .

��05 rC� j^7Y% �*!c� �� � �� )�� )�� �$

Z(�% �% S!8 �$ 9�8!� �. $0a+ %����� ����

P0! Z(�%401%� j^7Y% H!87��. Z>�� � $�0��a �

�5$%$ )�5 ���aL�$ Z(�%SLM046 � �"��% �

u8�1 I���) �67�%$ %� j^7Y% H!87 �2.(

$%$ )�5 ()0'8�" )0��+) �<7*t )0��+ n!75

O�� {Y� �07�> �$ �%8. �<7*t `!8q ��

&!^� ��05 rC� �739/0 $0. I��� )4(. H!%8.6.

�� $�0� �07�> �$ �� :\� )%0; H!% �$ ,!��+

�5$0. 8<!��! �% �1.; h�cK; . �07�> �$ )�� j^7Y%

�'�8. � :�'*L )%��� 8<5�5 %��� Z(�% �$ ��

.:'R5+ �$ T K; &(� �$u8�1 {Y� H�<5��

O��&!^� $0. P. ���aL�$ H!% ��05 rC� H�<5��

H�!" �8� �$ %� &(�u8� Z(�% H�6�o .$%$ �%8( �8;-

3 H�<5�� $�0��a � O�� � �5$%$ )�5 %� �6�!" &!^�

�8� �$ )0��+ ��6. �8� �$ H�5%$�%8( H�!" � -

�8��$ %� R5+ P. ��05 rC� H�<5�� �% �67>8� �

�� 8;P. I���) $%$2 .(6.8.H!% �� )%0;&(� u8�1

%�&(� S! )%061. r0*K� 9*L$8� �%�c� . %8!�

�!�� &!^� 9�8!� &�$%$ )�5 %� �8; ���aL�$

u8� Z(�%3 $�0��a � %� r0*K� T K7� Z(�%$8�

�. %8!�&V� !� �% �$!� �%�c� ��6!% H!% �$ 9�8

:�%$ �0_L )�� &!^� �%e�\Y�8; )�5 %� -

�5$%$ )Cooper and Jones, 1983(. �!�5+ �%-

m!%8� :K; Z(�% ,6�%� �'�8. ,��" H!% �$ ��

�:'% �� Z�5% �5-�� � �$�t7�% �%8. n!75 ��!;

�.:'$ � ��+�%8�; ,!��+EF' �$ ����� . �

�% $\7'%�1�tG ��$0a+ :'% ���8q.

O�*Y �� :'% �� {-�� ��t( Oc�cK; �$

�5%$ �. 9�8!� H!% ��g%�� �� H!% �6V�� � ��.

$��L )+ O�*Y �20 ; 50 �g�$ $��+8. ��:'%

)Sutic et al., 1999 Walsh et al., 1989;( .

�$ Z(�% �*!c� � �'�8. �%8. 8<!$ &R� �07�> 8k%

�. ��$0a+9�8!�� �5%$ )�� �'�8. �6V�� �

�� ��+ :'�. �6���5 ��5 �07�> H!% �'�8. �� ��.

�%8�%�� ����� m!%8� �$ ,!��+ H!%8.6. .��.

T K7� ,��" H!% �$ �� ��(�% ,6�%� �'�8. Z�5%

�� �7Y6� �$ �5%�� ���8q ����� m!%8�.��.

76

:,-. / � � $%� &'(9�8!� �!%�� S! �. %��� Z(�% ,6�%�...

�,$1- ��� �� �$�& ��NO��� ������� ����� � ������ �&� ) ��Cauliflower mosaic virus, CaMV .(A ���� :

= ��NOB = �*�^ :C � ��$� _�W� :D _�W� � ��`���� :.��$�

Figure. 1- Symptoms induced by inoculation with Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) in canola

varieties, A: without symptoms, B: mottling, C: vein clearing and D: mosaic and vein clearing.

)���2- Q�� )�H ����� DS� � ��NO B�$ PC�$ 9�8&���405 ��� ������� ����� ���R� ����" �/��&�& ��

)Cauliflower mosaic virus, CaMV(

Table2- Mean of symptoms severity index and absorbance at 405 nm wave length in ELISA of

Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV)

Cultivar No. of plants with score

3 and 4

Mean of severity index Mean of absorbance

(I) (M) (I) (M)

Hayola 401 8 3.00a 0g 2.83ab 1.23j

Zafar 4 2.08cde

0g 2.6

abcde 1.42

ij

Sary gol 6 2.50bc

0g 2.54

bcdef 1.33

ij

Karaj1 6 2.83ab

0g 2.17

fg 1.45

ij

Karaj2 4 2.08cde 0g 2.68abcd 1.31ij

Karaj3 0 1.42f 0g 2.55bcdef 1.18j

RGS003 4 2.50bc

0g 2.43

cdef 1.36

ij

Opera 0 1.83def

0g 2.28

efg 1.31

ij

Talayeh 0 1.92def 0g 2.51bcdef 1.57ij

Licord 2 2.00cde 0g 2.94a 1.36ij

Okapi 0 1.75def

0g 2.29

defg 1.71

hi

SLM046 0 1.58ef

0g 1.96

gh 1.42

ij

Zarfam 2 2.17cd

0g 2.79

abc 1.24

j

I : �� �!� �5� �� . CaMV

M : �� � �; �� . 8>. O\*>

H�<5�� I 7L% EF' �$ H�5%$ )0��+ 9'% 8. �.�� j�8L �%�%$ �5�61� %.�67*�5 �%$

I: Inoculated by CaMV,

M: Mock inoculation

Means values indicated by the same letters represent not significant differences at P ≤ 0.05 calculated using

the Duncan test.

A B

C D

77

������� �� ����)� ������ ��� �(39 � �3 ���!" 1395

)���3- ����" )��/K� 234 � B�\��� 9�8&���ANOVA ��� ������� ����� �� ���� ���� �� �!" �" ��d�F � ��

����� Z�IF � ��NO %�

Table3- Square means and significance level of ANOVA test in inoculated canola cultivars by

Cauliflower mosaic virus and its effect on symptoms and virus accumulation

Virus absorbance Mean of severity

index Degree of

freedom Source

638.545** 1156.049** 1 Virus 2.415** 4.309** 12 Genotype 5.157** 4.309** 12 Virus×Genotype

275 Error

312 Total

ns �61� j^7Y%:*�5 �%$

�61� j^7Y% * � ** I 7L% EF' �$ `�;8; �. �%$05/0 �01/0

Ns: not significant

*, **: Significant at the 0.05 and 0.01 probability levels, respectively

)���4- ����� � ���� ���� ����� ����� DS� � ��NO B�$ PC�$ (��4��^) �8/*W�� ����" V��/&

��� ������� ) ��Cauliflower mosaic virus, CaMV(

Table 4- Results of Pearson correlation test for symptoms severity index and virus absorbance in

canola cultivars reacted to Cauliflower mosaic virus.

Correlation coefficient Cultivar 0.909** Hayola 401 0.875** Zafar 0.672** Sary gol 0.644** Karaj1 0.896** Karaj2 0.919** Karaj3 0.892** RGS003 0.896** Opera 0.775** Talayeh 0.638** Licord 0.533** Okapi 0.533** SLM046 0.810** Zarfam 0.739** Total

I876� m!%8� �$ %��� Z(�% ,6�%� ��t( O1aF� �$

�!%�� 8.%8. �$ ����� � �� 9�8!� �% �%CaMV Z�5%

��:'%. Z ; �� $%$ )�5 �'�8. H!% �% TgL n!75

O�\; H!% . �67�%$ ,6�%� 9�8!� 8.%8. �$ %��� Z(�%

�. :t*5 �87��. O�� . ,6�%� H!% Z(�% �Y8. �$ ��

��� Z(�% 8!') ��Walsh and Tomlinson,

1985; Walsh, 1989( �� ��5 8qL h�cK; �$ .

,6�%�13 �!%�� 8.%8. �$ %��� ���; &(� �CM1841

9�8!�CaMV �� �'�8. �G Z(�% Z ; �� $%$ )�5

. ��$0a+CaMV �5$%$ )�5 %� �'�8!� &!^�.

Z(�% 8!' �% 87��. Z(�% �Y8. �$ &!^� O�� H�6o

Oc�cK; n!75 . �� $0.(1989) Walsh et al.

$�%$ :c.F�. �$ �%�!" :��c� )06�; ��6!% �. ��0; .

�$ �� H!% ]�;05[ 8.%8.CaMV �:'% ��5 ���

78

:,-. / � � $%� &'(9�8!� �!%�� S! �. %��� Z(�% ,6�%�...

$R6��" ��B�� �% $0� �% $\7'% . S�75[ �'�6R� �

8�� �. �% �7>8�8. :��c�; �%8. H!% �. Z�c� �%��� ��a0

'% 9�8!�.$0� $\7

B�%�� �$ ��6!% �. ��0; .� �0_L $�17�)��

CaMV �TuMV %��� )�� �% )%8!% �$ B�%��

:'% �� )Farzadfar and Pourrahim, 2014 p

Shahraeen, 2012 pTabarestani et al., 2010

(O�*Y �. H�6o � H!% �% ��5 ��$ �$ 9�8!�

:'% �� ��% ��5 %���)Walsh and Tomlinson,

1985; �Walsh et al., 1989; Coutts and

Jones, 2000;( 8.%8. �$ Z(�% H!% ,6�%� H!%8.6. �

��$0a+b0�-� CaMV �TuMV �1aF� $�0� ��5

�%8( . %��� Z(�% ,!��+ H!% �G .:>8� �J� v8. -

�% S! 8 �. $0a+ &U�� )�� � �$9�8!� �!� �5�

&!^� �0R� )�� �$ .�5��� �� �1q0� ��a :�^�

v8. �$ P0 1��!� ��� ��� �� �5� �$0�

��a &!^� ���aL �$ .��5 ��� )�� �$ �1q0�

�. $0a+ CaMV �% /"14 �!� )�� �% ��� Z ; �$ �5�

�� ��� Z(�%��a &!^� H�6o . :\ �% /" �1q0�

v8. �$ ����!� � . �� �5�TuMV ��5 B�%��

��:'% ) Jafari et al., 2016�% /" .( ��� :\

� �� S� 7*�' &!^� �$ v8. ��!��5� ��5 )��

��5 H!% .�� ����% ��5 S�!%�0� T�� &!^�

TuMV ��t� &!^� ��% ��5 �$�� CaMV �� $0.

8!' � �5$8� %��" B87*� &!^� H!% �% Z%�� 8 n!��7.

9�8!� �% S! 8 �% ��5 &!^� ��� �$ .��

&!^� ���aL CaMV $��L14 �!� �% /" ��� �5�

8� ��� &!^� TuMV �!� �% /" ��� :\ T.( �5�

���.$0. �% ��5 &!^� n!��7.TuMV v8. �$

B87*�%��"v8. EF' �$�� � S�!%�0� &!^� � $8� -

%8> %� %��� �� �:>8�. �% ��5 &!^� ���75 �$

CaMV v8. �$ �� �. :t*5 �87 � O�� . %��� �

TuMV . :'% ��� T.(� �7-'$0. �.!$� T.( �$ .

�% /" :!R535 ��� �!� �%�5� &!^� �� TuMV �.

��L8� �$0tR. )recovery (���'� &!^� CaMV

��� T.( )6o :�%$$! I0G �$ H�6o .$0. -

�9�8!� �$ �. $0a+ �%��� )�� �$ &!^� ��%$8.

��$0a+ �% �� �;�\7� &!^�b0�-� $0�0. %��� )��

H�5%$ )0��+ �$ H�<5�� �*!c� n!75 .��5 ��� �!�.

O�� {Y� �%8.&!^� CaMV ��$0a+ �$b0�-�

O�� {Y� H�<5�� �*!c� n!75 . 9�8!� �$&!^�

CaMV .$0. �.�� 9�8!� H!% . �gJ7Y% ��$0a+ �$

�6W 8 �% ��5 &!^� �0R� CaMV �% Z(�% �Y8. �$

��' �8\� T�t( P0! �T�401 f!8' Z>�� � �\;% 8;

O�� {Y� �%8. H�<5�� �*!c� n!75 .$7>%&!^�

TuMV ��$0a+ �$b0�-� �� $%$ )�5 9�8!� �$

�8� . �*!c� �$ Z(�% ��6. ,6�%� �'�8. n!75 Z(�%

. %���� TuMV $�%$ O�\; )Jafari et al., 2016( .

��$0a+ �$ H�<5�� b0�-� {Y�&!^� TuMV �$

��' &(� H�<5�� . T�83/6 I��� ) 5� ( ��$0a+ �$

. %��� Z(�%� TuMV ��;%��� &(�2 H�<5�� .66/7

,�. �'�8. �$ 8 �$ ���aL �$ :�%$ %� H�<5�� H!8;

u8� &(�3 �J7Y% $0Y �. %� &!^� {Y� H!87 �

$%$`�;8; . ,!��+ �$ H!% �$ Z(�% 8!' . �% O�\7� �

�8� 8<!��!�5�� ��6. I���)5 �Jafari et al.,

2016 .(�. ��6!% &V� �$�'�8. . %��� Z(�%� TuMV

u8� &(�2 �<a0;0� &!^� 75 �$ ���� ,�. H!8; ���$

H�<5�� %��:'% $%$ )�5 &!^� 8qL h�cK; �$

��%$8. :�%$$! �$ �<a0;0� .��5 :tk &(� H!% �%8.

���5-�� m!%8� �. %� i0q0� H!% :�� )%0; ��.�$ �!�

$ :t*5:�a1> �%8. �6�R. ��$ .$% TuMV $��L18

���$90�*�' �����. �. Z(�% ,6�%� �'�8.TuMV

�$ :'% �� Z�5% 9�8!� �6�R. ��$ �$�aL ���'�8.

��$ �$ 9�8!� �$ b0�-� ��$0a+22 90�*�' ���$

f �; )%��� ,6� 8. .�� Z�5%CaMV �TuMV �

�� �. O�� $%$ )�5 /�*"���.%�+ �� �$ R5+ �!%�

:'%�F.%� �50� }� ��& � 9�8!� �$ H!% )�� �!%�>%

)$�%�5 $0��Martín and Elena, 2009.(

79

������� �� ����)� ������ ��� �(39 � �3 ���!" 1395

)���5- ����� U��'� �� �!" ��NO B�$ PC�$ 9�8&������ ������� %��) ��Cauliflower mosaic virus,

CaMV ) �#�$ ������� � ( Turnip mosaic virus, TuMV(

Table 5- Mean of symptoms severity index in mixed infection by Cauliflower mosaic

virus and Turnip mosaic virus.

CaMV TuMV Cultivar

3.20a 5.17

f Hayola 401

2.12cde 6.33

bc Zafar

2.70ab 6.83a Sary gol

2.77ab 5.83

de Karaj1

2.15cde 6.50

ab Karaj2

1.30f 2.50

g Karaj3

2.40bc 6.00cd RGS003

1.88def 6.00

cd Opera

1.90def 6.00

cd Talayeh

2.00cde 5.83

de Licord

1.63ef 5.50ef Okapi

1.60ef 5.83

de SLM046

2.20cd 5.67

de Zarfam

H�<5�� I 7L% EF' �$ H�5%$ )0��+ 9'% 8. )07' 8 �$ �.�� j�8L �%�%$ �5 %�61�.�67*�5 �%$

Means values indicated by the same letters represent not significant differences at P ≤ 0.05 calculated using

the Duncan test.

�� ��5 8qL h�cK; n!75 :>8� Z�5% %��� �� ���

%� /�*"���.%�+ �� ��� �.�� n!75�� ��!;�6�.

&(� :�'*L �% ��L ,��" H!% n!75 �

:�� �%��� �. :t*5 )%8!% �$ ��CaMV ��$0a+ �

)�� CaMV �TuMV ��. �� �>8G �% � �$

)%8!% �$ %��� :�� hG6� `�V% �� H!% � �$8 �.

�� $0a+ 9�8!��0$. $R6��" H!%8.6.�� $0� �� :��

&(� �% �� ��!�� � `'6� ��%�� O�g0JY sKa

9�8!� �. ��t*5 :��c� ��5 . ! � $0� n!�8; �5�%$

B�� �% $\7'%:-!�%8; S�75[ �'�6R� � ��'

&(� �!%0 � r+ m!%8� . ���' � ��%�� `'6� �

�%8( ��58. �$ )%8!%.$8��

REFERENCES

Agama, K., Beach, S., Schoelz, J., and Leisner, S. M. 2002. The 5' third of Cauliflower

mosaic virus Gene VI conditions resistance breakage in Arabidopsis ecotype Tsu-0.

Phytopathology, 92(2): 190-196.

Anderson, E. J., Qiu, S. G., and Schoelz, J. E. 1991. Genetic analysis of determinants of

disease severity and virus concentration in Cauliflower mosaic virus. Virology, 181(2):

647-655.

Anonymous. 2014. Agricultural statistics year book. Ministry of Jihad-e-Agriculture of

Iran, Tehran, Iran.

Callaway, A., Liu, W., Andrianov, V., Stenzler, L., Zhao, J., Wettlaufer, S., and Howell,

S. H. 1996. Characterization of Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) resistance in virus-

resistant ecotypes of Arabidopsis. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions, 9(9): 810-818.

80

:,-. / � � $%� &'(9�8!� �!%�� S! �. %��� Z(�% ,6�%�...

Cecchini, E., Al-Kaff, N. S., Bannister, A., Giannakou, M. E., McCallum, D. G., Maule,

A. J., and Covey, S. N. 1998. Pathogenic interactions between variants of Cauliflower

mosaic virus and Arabidopsis thaliana. Journal of Experimental Botany, 49(321): 731-

737.

Cooper, J. I., and Jones, A. T. 1983. Responses of plants to viruses: proposals for the use

of terms. Phytopathology, 73(2): 127-128.

Coutts, B. A., and Jones, R. A. C. 2000. Viruses infecting canola (Bassica napus) in

south-west Australia: incidence, distribution, spread, and infection reservoir in wild radish

(Raphanus raphinistrum). Crop and Pasture Science, 51(7): 925-936.

Dellaporta, S. L., Wood, J., and Hicks, J. B. 1983. A plant DNA minipreparation: version

II. Plant Molecular Biology Reporter, 1(4): 19-21.

Edwards, O. R., Franzmann, B., Thackray, D., and Micic, S. 2008. Insecticide resistance

and implications for future aphid management in Australian grains and pastures: a review.

Animal Production Science, 48(12): 1523-1530.

Farzadfar, S., and Pourrahim, R. 2014. A Distinct Subpopulation of Cauliflower mosaic

virus (CaMV) in South Iran. Journal of Phytopathology, 162(11-12): 833-838.

Farzadfar, S., Pourrahim, R. and Ebrahimi, H. 2014. A phylogeographical study of the

Cauliflower mosaic virus population in mid-Eurasia Iran using complete genome analysis.

Archives of Virology, 159: 1329-1340.

Hapiak, M., Li, Y., Agama, K., Swade, S., Okenka, G., Falk, J., and Leisner, S. M. 2008.

Cauliflower mosaic virus gene VI product N-terminus contains regions involved in

resistance-breakage, self-association and interactions with movement protein. Virus

Research, 138(1): 119-129.

Hull, R., and Shepherd, R. J. 1977. The structure of Cauliflower mosaic virus genome.

Virology, 79(1): 216-230.

Jafari, M., Shams-bakhsh, M. and Moeini, A. 2016. Reaction of commercial canola

varieties and lines against Turnip mosaic virus (TuMV) isolate. Iranian Journal of Plant

Pathology, 52 (2): 147- 159.

Lebeurier, G., Hirth, L., Hohn, T., and Hohn, B. 1980. Infectivities of native and cloned

DNA of Cauliflower mosaic virus. Gene, 12(1): 139-146.

Martín, S., and Elena, S. F. 2009. Application of game theory to the interaction between

plant viruses during mixed infections. Journal of General Virology, 90(11): 2815-2820.

Melcher, U. 1989. Symptoms of Cauliflower mosaic virus infection in Arabidopsis

thaliana and turnip. Botanical Gazette, 150(2): 139-147.

Pink, D. A. C., and Walkey, D. G. A. (1988). The reaction of summer- and autumn-

maturing cauliflowers to infection by Cauliflower mosaic and turnip mosaic viruses.

Journal of Horticultural Science, 63(1), 95-102.

81

������� �� ����)� ������ ��� �(39 � �3 ���!" 1395

Pink, D. A. C., Sutherland, R. A. and Walkey, D. G. A. 1986. Genetic analysis of

resistance in Brussels sprout to Cauliflower mosaic and turnip mosaic viruses. Annals of

Applied Biology, 109: 199-208.

Provvidenti, R. 1980. Evaluation of Chinese cabbage cultivars from Japan and the

People's Republic of China for resistance to Turnip mosaic virus and Cauliflower mosaic

virus. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 105(4): 571-573.

Sambrook, J., Fritsch, E. F., and Maniatis, T. (1989). Molecular cloning, 2:14-9. New

York: Cold spring harbor laboratory press.

Saunders, K., Lucy, A. P. and Covey, S. N. 1990. Susceptibility of Brassica species to

Cauliflower mosaic virus infection is related to a specific stage in the virus multiplication

cycle. Journal of General Virology, 71: 1641-1647.

Schoelz, J. E., and Shepherd, R. J. 1988. Host range control of Cauliflower mosaic virus.

Virology, 162(1): 30-37.

Shahraeen, N. 2012. An overview of oilseed rape (canola) virus diseases in Iran.

International Research Journal of Microbiology, 3: 024-028.

Shams-Bakhsh, M., Canto, T., and Palukaitis, P. 2007. Enhanced resistance and

neutralization of defense responses by suppressors of RNA silencing. Virus Research,

130(1): 103-109.

Shepherd, R. J. 1981. Cauliflower mosaic virus. CMI/AAB Descriptions of plant viruses,

No. 243. 6 pp.

Sohi, M. G., Shahraeen, N., and Rakhshandehroo, F. 2013. Biological and phylogenetic

study of Cauliflower mosaic virus on canola in Iran. Iranian Journal of Plant Pathology,

49(1): 29-30.

Sutic, D. D., Ford, R. E., and Tosic, M. T. 1999. Handbook of plant virus diseases. CRC

Press.

Tabarestani, A. Z., Shams-bakhsh, M., and Safaei, N. 2010. Distribution of three

important aphid borne canola viruses in Golestan province. Iranian Journal of Plant

Protection Science, 41(2): 251-259.

Tang, W. and Leisner, S. M. 1997. Cauliflower mosaic virus isolate NY8153 breaks

resistance in Arabidopsis ecotype En-2. Phytopathology, 87: 792-798.

Walkey, D. G. A., and Neely, H. A. 1980. Resistance in white cabbage to necrosis caused

by turnip and cauliflower mosaic viruses and pepper-spot. The Journal of Agricultural

Science, 95(03): 703-713.

Walsh, J. A. 1989. Genetic control of immunity to Turnip mosaic virus in winter oilseed

rape (Brassica napus ssp. oleifera) and the effect of foreign isolates of the virus. Annals

of Applied Biology, 115: 89-99.

82

:,-. / � � $%� &'(9�8!� �!%�� S! �. %��� Z(�% ,6�%�...

Walsh, J. A., and Tomlinson, J. A. 1985. Viruses infecting winter oilseed rape (Brassica

napus ssp. oleifera). Annals of Applied Biology, 107(3): 485-495.

Walsh, J. A., Perrin, R. M., Miller, A., and Laycock, D. S. 1989. Studies on Beet western

yellows virus in winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus ssp. oleifera) and the effect of

insecticidal treatment on its spread. Crop Protection, 8(2): 137-143.

7

Plant Protection (Scientific Journal of Agriculture), 39(3) Fall 2016

Reaction of canola cultivars to Cauliflower mosaic virus and co-infection of

Turnip mosaic virus and Cauliflower mosaic virus under greenhouse condition

A. Ghasemzadeh1 and M. Shams-bakhsh

2*

1. Ph.D. Student, Department of Plant Pathology, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

2. *Corresponding Author: Associate Professor, Department of Plant Pathology, Faculty of Agriculture, Tarbiat

Modares University, Tehran, Iran ([email protected])

Received: 17 April 2016 Accepted: 22 October 2016

Abstract

The expanding cultivation of canola (Brassica napus L.) in the world indicates the importance of

this plant. Out of 12 reported viruses in canola, Cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) and Turnip

mosaic virus (TuMV) are of particular importance. Use of resistant cultivars would be the best

approach to control losses caused by viral diseases. So far, the reaction of commercial canola

cultivars in Iran to CaMV has not been assessed. In this study, 13 commercial varieties of canola

were evaluated against a CaMV isolate under greenhouse conditions. Analysis of symptom

severity index and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) of inoculated plants showed

that Karaj3 cultivar was tolerant to this virus. In addition, due to co-infection of canola fields

with CaMV and TuMV, the reaction of commercial canola cultivars to mixed infections with

both viruses was evaluated. The obtained results showed that commercial canola cultivars in Iran

were susceptible to both CaMV and TuMV. However, Karaj3 cultivar was considered to be

moderately susceptible to CaMV and TuMV co-infection compared to other tested cultivars.

Key words: Brassica napus, ELISA, Resistance