Quantitative studies on the uptake and retention of potato leafroll virus by aphids in laboratory and field conditions

Abstract

SUMMARYEnzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was adapted for the efficient detection and assay of potato leafroll virus (PLRV) in aphids. Best results were obtained when aphids were extracted in 0.05 M phosphate buffer, pH 7.0, and the extracts incubated at 37 °C for 1 h before starting the assay. Using batches of 20 green peach aphids (Myzus persicae), about 0.01 ng PLRV/aphid could be detected. The virus could also be detected in single aphids allowed a 1‐day acquisition access period on infected potato leaves. The PLRV content of aphids depended on the age of potato source‐plants and the position of source leaves on them. It increased with increase in acquisition access period up to 7 days but differed considerably between individual aphids. A maximum of 7 ng PLRV/aphid was recorded but aphids more usually accumulated about 0.2 ng PLRV per day. When aphids were allowed acquisition access periods of 1–3 days, and then caged singly on Physalis floridana seedlings for 3 days, the PLRV content of each aphid, measured subsequently, was not strongly correlated with the infection of P. floridana. The concentration of PLRV in leaf extracts differed only slightly when potato plants were kept at 15, 20, 25 or 30 °C for 1 or 2 wk, but the virus content of aphids kept on leaves at the different temperatures decreased with increase of temperature. PLRV was transmitted readily to P. floridana at all temperatures, but by a slightly smaller proportion of aphids, and after a longer latent period, at 15 °C than at 30 °C.The PLRV content of M. persicae fed on infected potato leaves decreased with increasing time after transfer to turnip (immune to PLRV). The decrease occurred in two phases, the first rapid and the second very slow. In the first phase the decrease was faster, briefer and greater at 25 and 30 °C than at 15 and 20 °C. No evidence was obtained that PLRV multiplies in M. persicae. These results are compatible with a model in which much of the PLRV in aphids during the second phase is in the haemocoele, and transmission is mainly limited by the rate of passage of virus particles from haemolymph to saliva.The potato aphid, Macrosiphum euphorbiae, transmitted PLRV much less efficiently than M. persicae. Its inefficiency as a vector could not be ascribed to failure to acquire or retain PLRV, or to the degradation of virus particles in the aphid. Probably only few PLRV particles pass from the haemolymph to saliva in this species.The virus content of M. euphorbiae collected from PLRV‐infected potato plants in the field increased from early June to early July, and then decreased. PLRV was detected both in spring migrants collected from the plants and in summer migrants caught in yellow water‐traps. PLRV was also detected in M. persicae collected from infected plants in July and August, and in trapped summer migrants, but their PLRV content was less than that of M. euphorbiae, and in some instances was too small for unequivocal detection.