Pepino mosaic virus
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Distribution Table
- Risk of Introduction
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Growth Stages
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Seedborne Aspects
- Plant Trade
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.Generate report
PicturesTop of page
IdentityTop of page
Preferred Scientific Name
- Pepino mosaic virus
Local Common Names
- Netherlands: pepino mozaïek virus
- PEPMV0 (Pepino mosaic potexvirus)
Taxonomic TreeTop of page
- Domain: Virus
- Unknown: "Positive sense ssRNA viruses"
- Unknown: "RNA viruses"
- Order: Tymovirales
- Family: Alphaflexiviridae
- Genus: Potexvirus
- Species: Pepino mosaic virus
Notes on Taxonomy and NomenclatureTop of page Pepino mosaic virus (PepMV) is a definitive species of the genus Potexvirus. This genus, with potato virus X (PVX) as the type species, includes a number of agronomically important viruses. Currently two strains of the virus are recognized; the pepino strain as described by Jones et al (1980) and the tomato strain (Van der Vlugt et al., 2000).
DescriptionTop of page PepMV particles show typical potexvirus morphology; flexible filaments and measure 510 x 12.5 nm (Jones et al. 1980). Ultrathin sections of infected Nicotiana glutinosa leaves show inclusions containing arrays of filamentous virus-like particles.
DistributionTop of page Pepino mosaic virus was first described in 1980 (Jones et al., 1980) when isolated from pepino (Solanum muricatum) plants collected in 1974 from the coastal region of Peru. After this initial description no further findings were recorded. In 1999 the virus was again diagnosed from greenhouse-grown tomato plants in the Netherlands. In early 2000 the virus was officially reported from three additional European countries: the UK, France and Germany (EC directive 325). Unofficially the virus has been found in plant material originating from other European and non-European countries. Given its transmission characteristics it is likely that the virus is more widespread then currently officially recognized.
Distribution TableTop of page
The distribution in this summary table is based on all the information available. When several references are cited, they may give conflicting information on the status. Further details may be available for individual references in the Distribution Table Details section which can be selected by going to Generate Report.
|Continent/Country/Region||Distribution||Last Reported||Origin||First Reported||Invasive||Reference||Notes|
|China||Present, few occurrences||Zhang et al., 2003; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Jiangsu||Present, few occurrences||CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Shanghai||Present||Zhang et al., 2003|
|Syria||Present||EPPO, 2011; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Taiwan||Absent, unreliable record||EPPO, 2014|
|Turkey||Present, few occurrences||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Madagascar||Absent, unreliable record||EPPO, 2014|
|Morocco||Present||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|South Africa||Present, few occurrences||Carmichael et al., 2011; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Canary Islands||Present||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Canada||Present, few occurrences||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-British Columbia||Present||Ling et al., 2008; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Ontario||Present, few occurrences||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Mexico||Present, few occurrences||Ling and Zhang, 2011; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|USA||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Alabama||Present||Ling et al., 2008; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Arizona||Present||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-California||Present||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Colorado||Present||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Florida||Present||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Maryland||Present||Maroon-Lango et al., 2005; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Minnesota||Present||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Oklahoma||Present||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Texas||Present||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
Central America and Caribbean
|Guatemala||Absent, invalid record||CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Chile||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Ecuador||Present||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Peru||Widespread||Jones et al., 1980; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Austria||Present, few occurrences||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Belgium||Present, few occurrences||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Bulgaria||Present, few occurrences||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Croatia||Eradicated||EPPO, 2011; Milanovic et al., 2011; Novak et al., 2012; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Cyprus||Widespread||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Czech Republic||Eradicated||IPPC, 2008; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Denmark||Present, few occurrences||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Estonia||Absent, confirmed by survey||EPPO, 2014|
|Finland||Absent, confirmed by survey||2001||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|France||Present, few occurrences||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Germany||Present, few occurrences||1999||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Greece||Restricted distribution||Efthimiou et al., 2011; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Hungary||Present, few occurrences||Takács et al., 2012; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Ireland||Present, few occurrences||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Italy||Present, few occurrences||2001||EPPO, 2011; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Italy (mainland)||Present, few occurrences||CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Sardinia||Present, few occurrences||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Sicily||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Lithuania||Present, few occurrences||Sneideris et al., 2013; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Malta||Absent, confirmed by survey||EPPO, 2014|
|Netherlands||Restricted distribution||NPPO of the Netherlands, 2013; van der Vlugt et al., 2000; EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Norway||Eradicated||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Poland||Present, few occurrences||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Portugal||Absent, confirmed by survey||EPPO, 2014|
|Slovakia||Eradicated||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Slovenia||Absent, confirmed by survey||EPPO, 2014|
|Spain||Widespread||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Balearic Islands||Absent, confirmed by survey||EPPO, 2014|
|-Spain (mainland)||Widespread||CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Sweden||Absent, formerly present||2001||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|Switzerland||Restricted distribution||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|UK||Present, few occurrences||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
|-Channel Islands||Absent, confirmed by survey||EPPO, 2014|
|-England and Wales||Present, few occurrences||EPPO, 2014; CABI/EPPO, 2015|
Risk of IntroductionTop of page PepMV is easily mechanically transmissible. Since symptoms are not always readily recognized, there is a danger that the virus can spread rapidly and unnoticed. Host plant studies show that other Solanaceous crop plants like aubergine and potato can be infected.
Hosts/Species AffectedTop of page PepMV has a relatively narrow host range and primarily infects Solanaceous plants. The primary host of the tomato strain of PepMV is tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) but the virus can also cause symptoms in pepino (Solanum muricatum), aubergine (Solanum melongena) and potato (Solanum tuberosum). There are indications that the host ranges of both strains may differ slightly.
Growth StagesTop of page Flowering stage, Fruiting stage, Vegetative growing stage
SymptomsTop of page Initial symptoms of PepMV on tomato plants include small yellow leaf spots that may resemble symptoms caused by Potato virus X (PVX). At a later stage, older leaves may show mottling and top leaves may show slight curling. Symptoms may depend on climatic conditions and become more visible under (relative) low light conditions. Sometimes fruits of infected plants may show an orange mottling but these symptoms can be very erratic and may differ between the trusses of one plant.
Symptoms on other Solanaceous crop plants can differ. Some potato cultivars showed no visible symptoms upon mechanical inoculation while others reacted strongly with necrosis (Jones et al., 1980).
List of Symptoms/SignsTop of page
|Fruit / discoloration|
|Leaves / abnormal forms|
|Leaves / abnormal patterns|
Means of Movement and DispersalTop of page Natural dispersal (non-biotic)
Leaves and fruits of infected plants can contain high concentrations of virus. Spread of the virus is by mechanical contact. Roots of infected tomato plants also show significant concentrations of virus. Upon damage or death of these roots, virus particles are likely to be released in the soil or drainage water.
In glasshouse experiments, the virus was shown to be transmitted by contact through bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). It is not transmitted by aphids.
The virus can be present on the outside of seeds collected from infected fruits. Seed lots should therefore be disinfected. There are no indications that the virus is transmitted inside the seed.
The virus is easily mechanically transmissible and symptoms can be weak under certain conditions. When not recognized in time the virus is likely to spread rapidly through tomato crops by normal cultural practices through hands, tools, clothing and machinery. The use of skimmed milk to disinfect hands and tools is recommended. Experimental evidence (unpublished) suggests that PepMV is less stable then PVX. Standard disinfection and hygiene protocols that apply for PVX are also expected to be sufficient for PepMV.
Movement in trade
Fruits may contain high virus concentrations. Crates and packaging materials are likely to get contaminated following fruit damage. Reusable crate material should be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected.
Planting material originating from nurseries should be tested before transfer to production facilities.
Seedborne AspectsTop of page
PepMV was detected by serology in tomato seeds (Salomone and Roggero, 2002).
In 2002, PepMV was detected by serology in tomato seeds but was not found to be seed transmissible to 50 seedlings (Salomone and Roggero, 2002). More recently, Hanssen et al. (2010) demonstrated that PepMV can be transmitted by tomato seeds, highlighting the risk of using seeds from PepMV-infected plants and further spreading the disease. PepMV has been identified in the seed coat of both immature and mature tomato seeds, but not in the embryo (Ling, 2008). Córdoba-Sellés et al. (2007) estimate that at least 25% of seeds from infected tomato plants carry PepMV. PepMV is neither seed-transmitted or seedborne in Nicotiana benthamiana.
PepMV is a very contagious pathogen, easily spread mechanically via contaminated tools, shoes, clothing, hands and plant-to-plant contact (Pospieszny and Borodynko, 2002).
Seed Health Tests
Seeds lots can be tested for the presence of the virus either by ELISA (Salomone and Roggero, 2002) or by PCR using Potex group-specific or PepMV primers sets.
Immersion of seeds in 10% trisodium phosphate for 3 h mostly eradicated the virus and was not detrimental to germination (Córdoba-Sellés et al. 2007). Ling (2010) found that a seed treatment of commercial bleach solution (0.5 and 1.0% sodium hypochlorite) was the most effective at reducing the incidence of PepMV, followed by trisodium phosphate. Hydorchloric acid treatment was not found to be effective. In the same study, dry heat baking seeds at 72 or 80°C for 48 to 72 h was effective in lowering PepMV infection rates, whereas soaking seeds in water at 55°C for two hours had a detrimental effect on seed germination.
Plant TradeTop of page
|Plant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport||Pest stages||Borne internally||Borne externally||Visibility of pest or symptoms|
|Fruits (inc. pods)||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Leaves||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Roots||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|Stems (above ground)/Shoots/Trunks/Branches||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
|True seeds (inc. grain)||Yes||Pest or symptoms usually invisible|
ImpactTop of page Infection of tomato crops with PepMV does not necessarily result in significant economic damage since fruit symptoms may be absent. However, experimental data (unpublished) suggest that yield may be affected and fruit setting may be delayed.
DiagnosisTop of page
The presence of PepMV in infected plant material and fruits can be assayed by serological methods like ELISA, using commercially available antisera. Antisera are specific and react equally well with both strains. No cross-reaction to PVX or Potato aucuba mosaic virus (PAMV), the only other potexviruses known to infect Solanaceous crops, was observed.
PepMV is mechanically transmissible to different experimental host plants. Several test plants allow discrimination between the pepino and tomato strains of PepMV for example, Nicotiana glutinosa and Datura stramonium.
The use of RT PCR in diagnosing PepMV is described in Hasiów et al. (2008). A polyprobe method of detection is detailed in Aparicio et al. (2009). An immunocapture-retrotranscription-PCR (IC-RT-PCR) approach is detailed in Mansilla et al. (2003).
Detection and InspectionTop of page Detection of the virus in commercial tomato and other Solanaceous crops depends on field inspection for typical symptoms. There may be small yellow spots, especially on young leaves at the top of the plant. At a later stage a more clear mosaic may be seen on older leaves. Fruits may sometimes show an orange mottling. Depending on climatic conditions, virus symptoms on the leaves can sometimes be weak and hard to see, and the virus may therefore escape attention.
Similarities to Other Species/ConditionsTop of page Initial, weak symptoms on tomato may resemble symptoms of PVX infection. A weak serological relationship to Narcissus mosaic virus is reported (Jones et al. 1980).
Prevention and ControlTop of page
Due to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.The virus should be controlled by the use of virus-free seed and planting material and strict hygienic measures.
ReferencesTop of page
Aparicio F; Soler S; Aramburu J; Galipienso L; Nuez F; Pallás V; López C, 2009. Simultaneous detection of six RNA plant viruses affecting tomato crops using a single digoxigenin-labelled polyprobe. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 123(1):117-123. http://springerlink.metapress.com/link.asp?id=100265
Commission decision 2000/325/EC, 2000. Official journal of the European Communities. Brussels.
Córdoba-Sellés Mdel C; García-Rández A; Alfaro-Fernández A; Jordá-Gutiérrez C, 2007. Seed transmission of Pepino mosaic virus and efficacy of tomato seed disinfection treatments. Plant Disease, 91(10):1250-1254. HTTP://www.apsnet.org
Efthimiou KE; Gatsios AP; Aretakis KC; Papayiannis LC; Katis NI, 2011. First report of Pepino mosaic virus infecting greenhouse cherry tomatoes in Greece. Plant Disease, 95(1):78. http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/loi/pdis
EPPO, 2011. EPPO Reporting Service. EPPO Reporting Service. Paris, France: EPPO. http://archives.eppo.org/EPPOReporting/Reporting_Archives.htm
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
Hanssen IM; Mumford R; Blystad DR; Cortez I; Hasiów-Jaroszewska B; Hristova D; Pagán I; Pereira AM; Peters J; Pospieszny H; Ravnikar M; Stijger I; Tomassoli L; Varveri C; Vlugt Rvan der; Nielsen SL, 2010. Seed transmission of Pepino mosaic virus in tomato. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 126(2):145-152. http://springerlink.metapress.com/link.asp?id=100265
Hasiów B; Borodynko N; Pospieszny H, 2008. Development of a real-time RT-PCR assay for detection of Pepino mosaic virus different strains. (Zastosowanie techniki real time RT-PCR w diagnostyce róznych szczepów wirusa mozaiki pepino.) Progress in Plant Protection, 48(2):458-462. http://www.progress.plantprotection.pl/pliki/2008/48-2-22.pdf
Maroon-Lango CJ; Guaragna MA; Jordan RL; Hammond J; Bandla M; Marquardt SK, 2005. Two unique US isolates of Pepino mosaic virus from a limited source of pooled tomato tissue are distinct from a third (European-like) US isolate. Archives of Virology, 150(6):1187-1201. http://springerlink.metapress.com/link.asp?id=100423
Milanovic J; Kajic V; Novak A, 2011. First record of Pepino mosaic virus (PepMV) in Croatia. (Prvi nalaz Pepino mosaic virusa (PepMV) u Hrvatskoj.) Glasilo Biljne Zastite, 11(5):353-356. http://www.hdbz.hr
Novak A; Milanovic J; Kajic V, 2012. First report of Pepino mosaic virus (PepMV) in Croatia. Acta Horticulturae [V Balkan Symposium on Vegetables and Potatoes, Tirana, Albania.], No.960:321-325. http://www.actahort.org/books/960/960_46.htm
Sneideris D; Zizite M; Zitikaite I; Urbanaviciene L; Staniulis J, 2013. First report of two distinct strains of Pepino mosaic virus infecting tomatoes in greenhouses in Lithuania. Journal of Plant Pathology, 95(1):217. http://sipav.org/main/jpp/index.php/jpp/article/view/2715
Stijger I; Verhoeven K; van der Vlugt R, 2000. Nieuw licht op pepino mozanekvirus. Groenten en Fruit. 21 April 2000:6-7.
Zhang YaoLiang; Shen ZhongJian; Zhong Jiang; Lu XiaoLi; Cheng Gong; Li RuDuo, 2003. Preliminary characterization of Pepino Mosaic Virus Shanghai isolate (PepMV-Sh) and its detection with ELISA. Acta Agriculturae Shanghai, 19(3):90-92.
Distribution MapsTop of page
Unsupported Web Browser:
One or more of the features that are needed to show you the maps functionality are not available in the web browser that you are using.
Please consider upgrading your browser to the latest version or installing a new browser.
More information about modern web browsers can be found at http://browsehappy.com/