Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (leaf curl)
Index
- Pictures
- Identity
- Summary of Invasiveness
- Taxonomic Tree
- Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
- Description
- Distribution
- Distribution Table
- History of Introduction and Spread
- Introductions
- Habitat List
- Hosts/Species Affected
- Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
- Growth Stages
- Symptoms
- List of Symptoms/Signs
- Biology and Ecology
- Climate
- Air Temperature
- Means of Movement and Dispersal
- Seedborne Aspects
- Pathway Causes
- Pathway Vectors
- Plant Trade
- Vectors and Intermediate Hosts
- Impact Summary
- Impact
- Environmental Impact
- Social Impact
- Risk and Impact Factors
- Diagnosis
- Detection and Inspection
- Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
- Prevention and Control
- References
- Links to Websites
- Organizations
- Contributors
- Distribution Maps
Don't need the entire report?
Generate a print friendly version containing only the sections you need.
Generate reportIdentity
Top of pagePreferred Scientific Name
- Tomato yellow leaf curl virus
Preferred Common Name
- leaf curl
Other Scientific Names
- tomato yellow leaf curl begomovirus
International Common Names
- English: tomato yellow leaf curl
English acronym
- TYLCV
EPPO code
- TYLCV0 (Tomato yellow leaf curl begomovirus)
Summary of Invasiveness
Top of pageThe wide global distribution of tomato crops and the dramatic outbreaks of the populations of the TYLCV vector, the whitefly Bemisia tabaci, led to a pandemic of this devastating disease. The virus probably arose in the Middle East between the 1930s and 1950s. Its global invasion began in the 1980s after the emergence of two strains: TYLCV-IL and TYLCV-Mld. The long-distance transportation of viruliferous whiteflies contaminating commercial shipments of tomato seedlings and ornamentals is probably the major reason for the virus pandemic (Caciagli, 2007). Sequence analyses allowed Lefeuvre et al. (2010) to trace the history of TYLCV spread. For instance, TYLCV-IL has invaded the Americas at least twice, once from the Mediterranean basin in 1992-1994 and once from Asia (a descendant of imported Middle Eastern TYLCV) in 1999-2003. As a result the estimated losses caused by TYLCV reached about 20% of tomato production in the USA, and 30-100% in the Caribbean Islands, Mexico, Central America and Venezuela. Therefore several countries (Australia, EU) have established severe quarantine measures to control the whitefly vector.
Taxonomic Tree
Top of page- Domain: Virus
- Group: "ssDNA viruses"
- Group: "DNA viruses"
- Family: Geminiviridae
- Genus: Begomovirus
- Species: Tomato yellow leaf curl virus
Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Top of page
The name Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) was coined in the early 1960s to describe a virus transmitted by the whitefly Bemisia tabaci that affected tomato cultures in Israel (Cohen and Harpaz, 1964). Early diagnosis of TYLCV was essentially based on symptom observation, although symptoms vary greatly as a function of soil, growth conditions and climate. Serology has been of limited use because whitefly-transmitted geminiviruses share many epitopes (Thomas et al., 1986; Chiemsombat et al., 1991). The analysis of DNA sequences has become the tool of choice, allowing one to accurately identify the virus and to evaluate its relationship with other TYLCV isolates. Viruses with nucleotide sequence homology of more than 90% are generally considered to be strains of the same virus; viruses with homologies of less than 90% are considered as different virus species (Padidam et al., 1995). The Seventh Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (van Regenmortel et al., 2000) places TYLCV in the genus Begomovirus of the family Geminiviridae, which includes whitefly-transmitted viruses with either a genome split between two genomic molecules DNA A and DNA B (bipartite) or with a single genomic DNA A-like molecule (monopartite).
Sequence comparisons have revealed that TYLCV was the name given to a complex of closely as well as distantly related begomoviruses affecting tomato worldwide (Picó et al., 1996; Nakhla and Maxwell, 1998). Nucleotide and phylogenetic analyses have allowed separation of the begomoviruses affecting tomato into several groups and a nomenclature has been proposed to reflect this classification (Fauquet et al., 2000). Accordingly, Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) is the name of the virus isolated in Israel. Hence this datasheet will refer only to the TYLCV complex, not to the other, different, tomato begomoviruses.
Seven different species belonging to the Tomato yellow leaf curl virus cluster have been identified (Abhary et al., 2007; Czosnek, 2008). The members of the TYLCV group, updated as of 2008, are listed below. The species names are written in italics, the strain names are not italicized and can be abbreviated. Some strain (TYLCV-Iran; TYLCV-Gezira) and isolate descriptors (TYLCV-[Israel:Rehovot:1986]) are added to the name. The descriptor of the strain level is written before the square brackets, while the isolate descriptors are between brackets and are composed of the country, the location and the year of sampling, when available. The Genbank accession number of the DNA sequence is listed.
1. Isolates related to Tomato yellow leaf curl virus from Israel (TYLCV-IL)
1.1. TYLCV - Israel [Israel:Rehovot:1986, X15656)
1.2. TYLCV - Israel [China:Shangai 2:2005] (TYLCV-IL[CN:SH2:05], AM282874)
1.3. TYLCV - Israel [Cuba] (TYLCV-IL[CU], AJ223505)
1.4. TYLCV - Israel [Dominican Republic] (TYLCV-IL[DO], AF024715)
1.5. TYLCV - Israel [Egypt:Ismaelia] (TYLCV-IL[EG:Ism], AY594174)
1.6. TYLCV - Israel [Egypt:Nobaria:1991] (TYLCV-IL[EG:Nob:91], EF107520)
1.7. TYLCV - Israel [Italy:Sicily:2004] (TYLCV-IL[IT:Sic:04], DQ144621)
1.8. TYLCV - Israel isolates from Japan (Haruno, Misumi, Miyazaki, Omura:Eustoma, Omura, Tosa; with respective Genbank accession number AB192966, AB116631, AB116629, AB116630, AB110217, AB192965)
1.9. TYLCV - Israel [Jordan:Tomato:2005] (TYLCV-IL[JO:Tom:05], EF054893)
1.10. TYLCV - Israel [Lebanon:Tomato:2005] (TYLCV-IL[LB:Tom:05], EF051116)
1.11. TYLCV - Israel [Mexico:Culiacan:2005] (TYLCV-IL[MX:Cul:05], DQ631892)
1.12. TYLCV - Israel [Morocco:Berkane:2005] (TYLCV-IL[MO:Ber:05], EF060196)
1.13. TYLCV - Israel [Puerto Rico:2001] (TYLCV-IL[PR:01], AY134494)
1.14. TYLCV - Israel [Spain:Almeria:Pepper:1999] (TYLCV-IL[ES:Alm:Pep:99], AJ489258
1.15. TYLCV - Israel [Tunisia:2005] (TYLCV-IL[TN:05], EF101929)
1.16. TYLCV - Israel [Turkey:Mersin:2004] (TYLCV-IL[TR:Mer:04], AK812277)
1.17. TYLCV - Israel [US:Florida] (TYLCV-IL[US:Flo], AY530931)
2. Isolates related to Tomato yellow leaf curl virus - Mild from Israel (TYLCV-Mld)
2.1. TYLCV - Mild [Israel:1993] (TYLCV-Mld[IL;93], X76319)
2.2. TYLCV - Mild isolates from Japan (Aichi, Atumu, Daito, Kisozaki, Osuka, Shimizu, Shizuoka, Yaizu; with respective Genbank accession number AB014347, AB116633, AB116635, AB116634, AB116636, AB110218, AB014346, AB116632)
2.3. TYLCV - - Mild [Jordan:Cucumber:2005] (TYLCV-Mld[JO:Cuc:03], EF158044)
2.4. TYLCV - Mild [Jordan:Homra:2003] (TYLCV-Mld[JO:Hom03], AY594175)
2.5. TYLCV - Mild [Jordan:Tomato:2005] (TYLCV-Mld[JO:Tom:03], EF054894)
2.6. TYLCV - - Mild [Lebanon;LBA44:05] (TYLCV-Mld[ILB;LBA44:05], EF185318)
2.7. TYLCV - Mild [Portugal:2:1995] (TYLCV-Mld[PT:2:95], AF105975)
2.8. TYLCV- Mild [Reunion:2002] (TYLCV-Mld[RE:02],AJ865337)
2.9. TYLCV- Mild [Spain:72:1997] (TYLCV-Mld[ES:72:97],AF071228)
2.10. TYLCV - Mild [Spain:Almeria:1999] (TYLCV-Mld[ES:Alm:99], AJ519441)
3. Isolates related to Tomato leaf curl Sudan virus ToLCSDV
3.1. ToLCV - Gezira [Sudan:1996] (ToLCV-Gez[SD:96], AY044138)
3.2. ToLCV - Shambat [Sudan:Shambat:1996] (ToLCSDV-Sha[SD:Sha:96], AY044139)
3.3. ToLCV - Yemen [Yemen:Tihamah:2006] (ToLCSDV-YE[YE:Tih:06], EF110890)
4. Tomato yellow leaf curl Axarquia virus - [Spain:Algarrobo:2000] (TYLCAxV-[ES:Alg:00], AY227892)
5. Tomato yellow leaf curl Malaga virus - [Spain:421:1999] (TYLCMalV-[ES:421:99], AF271234)
6. Isolates related to Tomato yellow leaf curl Mali virus TYLCMLV
6.1. TYLCMLV - Ethiopia [Ethiopia:Melkassa:2005] (TYLCMLV-ET[ET:Mel:05], DQ358913)
6.2. TYLCMLV - Mali [Mali] (TYLCMLV-ML[ML], AY502934)
7. Tomato yellow leaf curl virus - Iran (TYLCV-IR[IR], AJ132711)
Other TYLCV-related begomoviruses (Tomato yellow leaf curl China virus, Tomato yellow leaf curl Kanchanaburi virus, Tomato yellow leaf curl Malaga virus, Tomato yellow leaf curl New Delhi virus, Tomato yellow leaf curl Sardinia virus and Tomato yellow leaf curl Thailand virus) are the object of separate entries in the Compendium. This classification is rendered even more complicated by the recent discovery that recombination between species of geminiviruses happens relatively frequently (Padidam et al., 1999). Naturally occurring recombination has been recently found in the Almeria region, southern Spain, between TYLCV and TYLCSV, probably because the two virus species are co-existing in the tomato plants grown in the field and the greenhouse (Navas-Castillo et al., 2000; Monci et al., 2001) and even in the same nucleus (Morilla et al., 2004).
Additional begomoviruses affecting tomato cultures have not been assigned to the TYLCV family. In India, South-East Asia and in Australia, the prevalent virus was named Tomato leaf curl virus (ToLCV). In the Americas, the viruses were termed Tomato mottle virus in Florida (TMoV), Tomato leaf crumple virus (ToLCrV), formerly named Chino del tomate virus (CdTV), in Mexico Tomato golden mosaic virus (TGMV), in Central and South America Tomato severe leaf curl virus (ToSLCV), in Central America, Tomato yellow mosaic virus (ToYMV), Tomato yellow mottle virus (ToYMoV) and Tomato yellow vein streak virus (ToYVSV) in South America. These viruses clearly differ from the various TYLCVs in the symptoms they induce on tomato, their host range, their nucleotide sequence, and in their reaction with panels of monoclonal antibodies (Polston and Anderson, 1997).
Description
Top of pageTYLCV has a characteristic twinned morphology (Czosnek et al., 1988). The TYLCV capsid (total MW 3,330,000), like that of other geminiviruses (Zhang et al., 2001), consists of two joined, incomplete icosahedra, with a T=1 surface lattice containing a total of 22 capsomeres, each containing five units of a 260 amino acid coat protein (CP) of 30.3 kDa. TYLCV has a single 2787 nucleotides (total MW 980,000) covalently closed genomic circular ssDNA (Navot et al., 1991). Although all the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern TYLCV isolates have a single genomic component of similar size. TYLCV encodes two large open-reading frames (ORF) on the viral strand (V1 and V2), and four on the complementary strand (C1-C4). V1 encodes CP, and V2 encodes a movement-like protein (MP) with suppressor of RNA silencing properties. C1 encodes a replication-associated protein (Rep), C2 a transcriptional activator protein (TrAP), C3 a replication enhancer protein (REn) and C4 a symptom and movement determinant (Díaz-Pendón et al., 2010; Scholthof et al., 2011). TYLCV DNA includes an intergenic region containing a 29 nucleotide-long, stem-loop structure with the conserved nanonucleotide TAATATTAC, which serves as cleaving site during replication of the viral genome, according to the rolling circle model (Laufs et al., 1995).
Distribution
Top of page
Europe
France: Reported in 1999 in a single field in the Camargue district. Surveys conducted in 2000 have indicated that the eradication measures taken have been successful (Dalmon et al., 2000; Lepoivre, 2001).
Greece: In late summer 2000, tomatoes grown in greenhouses in several locations in Crete, Attiki and southern Peloponnese showed severe TYLCV symptoms. All greenhouses with infected plants were infested with high populations of Bemisia tabaci. Partial sequencing indicated identity with the TYLCV strain from Israel (Avgelis et al., 2001).
Italy: First recorded in Sardinia in 1988 (Gallitelli et al., 1991), then in Sicily in 1989 (Credi et al., 1989) and in Calabria in 1991 (Polizzi and Areddia, 1992). The disease is associated with large populations of B. tabaci (Rapisarda, 1990). Two different, but related, isolates have been sequenced: from Sardinia (TYLCSV, Kheyr-Pour et al., 1991) and from Sicily (TYLCSV-Sic, Crespi et al., 1995).
Portugal: In late summer 1995, an epidemic outbreak of a disease associated with B. tabaci seriously affected tomato crops in the Algarve, a region in southern Portugal where tomatoes are cultivated year round (Louro et al., 1996). The disease occurred mainly in greenhouse crops where up to 100% of autumn crops were affected and yield was drastically reduced. So far the disease appears to be limited to the Algarve region. Sequencing has indicated that the virus (TYLCV-PT) is genetically related to TYLCV from Israel.
Spain: In 1992, a virus closely related to the Sardinian isolate of TYLCV was found in tomato fields in Almeria and Malaga (Moriones et al., 1993). A survey in 1997 showed that both the Israeli (TYLCV) and Sardinian isolates (TYLCSV) are widely distributed in southern Spain (Sanchez-Campos et al., 1999). Recombinants between the two viruses have been found (Monci et al., 2001). In 1999, TYLCV was reported in Phaseolus bean (Navas-Castillo et al., 1999). TYLCV has recently been diagnosed in the Canary Islands (Font et al., 2000).
Switzerland: Present, but identity has not been confirmed by sequencing (Pelet, 1992).
Asia
Bangladesh, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar and Vietnam: Present, identified by sequencing. Five distinguished TYLCV isolates were identified, only that from Bangladesh had a bipartite genome (Green et al., 2001).
Bahrain: Present; identity has not been confirmed by sequencing (Traboulsi, 1994).
China: Increasingly prevalent and leading to serious yield losses especially in the south-western provinces of Yunan and Guangxi (Yin et al., 2001). Sequencing showed that TYLCV from China (TYLCCNV) is different from the known Mediterranean and Asian TYLCV isolates (Yongping et al., 2008).
Cyprus: Observed for the first time in 1974. Endemic in the southern coastal zone (Ioannou, 1987).
Iran: Prevalent in the southern provinces of Iran (Hajimorad et al., 1996). Sequencing indicated that TYLCV from Iran (TYLCV-IR) is related to the Middle Eastern TYLCV isolates (Bananej et al., 1998). An important centre of TYLCV diversity (Lefeuvre et al., 2010).
Iraq: Present; identity not confirmed by sequencing (Wilson et al., 1981).
Israel: Present since the early 1960s in the Jordan valley and the coastal plain (Cohen and Harpaz, 1964; Cohen and Nitzany, 1966; Czosnek et al., 1988). It is the most significant factor reducing yield in summer and autumn. The first TYLCV isolate to be sequenced (Navot et al., 1991).
Japan: Restricted distribution on tomato. Seven isolates have been sequenced (see Notes on taxonomy and Nomenclature; closely related to TYLCV from Israel (Kato et al., 1998).
Jordan: Present in the Jordan Valley; affects productivity in open field and greenhouse (Makkouk, 1978). Sequencing showed a complex of TYLCV-IL and TYLCSV-ES (Anfoka et al., 2008).
Korea: Rapidly spread to most regions of the Southern Korean peninsula after 2008. Sequencing of TYLCV and of mitochondrial cytochrome oxydase I from B. tabaci showed that TYLCV and its vector were introduced from Japan (Lee et al., 2010).
Kuwait: Widespread, causing a devastating disease of field-grown tomatoes since 1993 (Montasser et al., 1999).
Lebanon: Widespread in the coastal plains (Makkouk et al., 1979). The virus is closely related to other Middle Eastern TYLCV isolates (Abou-Jawdah et al., 1999).
Oman: Present; identity not confirmed by sequencing (Zouba et al., 1993; Azam et al., 1997).
Saudi Arabia: Present in the Al-Kharj and Qasim regions where it reaches epidemic proportions in summer plantations (Mazyad et al., 1979). Two different viruses have been isolated and partially sequenced: a Northern isolate (TYLCV-NSA) related to TYLCV from Israel, and a Southern isolate (TYLCSAV-SSA) (Hong and Harrison, 1995).
Thailand: A TYLCV disease broke out in 1978 associated with large populations of B. tabaci (Thanapase et al., 1983; Thongrit et al., 1986). TYLCV from Thailand (TYLCTHV) possesses a bipartite genome (Attathom et al., 1994; Rochester et al., 1994) whereas the other known TYLCV isolates are monopartite (Navot et al., 1991).
Turkey: Observed first in the Cukurova region, Adana province (Yilmaz et al., 1980) and more recently (1993) in the Aegean region. An isolate was found to be almost identical to the TYLCV from Israel (Morris, 1997).
Yemen: Increasing whitefly-related virus problems have been observed in tomato-growing regions since the 1970s. The virus is present in the Abayan and Hadramauvat regions. Partial sequencing has indicated that TYLCV from Yemen (TYLCYV) is distinct from the other TYLCV isolates (Bedford et al., 1994).
Africa
Algeria: Found in glasshouses on tomato and green capsicums, in association with large whitefly populations (Kerkadi et al., 1998). Identity not confirmed by sequencing.
Burkina Faso: The virus is found in many parts of the country but the incidence of disease varies from year to year; identity not confirmed by sequencing (Konate et al., 1995).
Cape Verde: The most important disease affecting tomato (Defrancq D'hondt and Russo, 1985). Omnipresent on Santiago Island (Czosnek and Laterrot, 1997); its identity has not been confirmed by sequencing.
Côte d’Ivoire: Virus present in the Bouake region (Czosnek and Laterrot, 1997); identification not confirmed by sequencing.
Egypt: TYLCV has invaded tomato plantations throughout lower and middle Egypt since 1989. Widespread in Fayoum, Ismailia and Giza (Mazyad et al., 1986), the virus is quasi-identical to the TYLCV isolate from Israel (Nakhla et al., 1993).
Libya: Present (Traboulsi, 1994); identity not confirmed by sequencing.
Mali: Present in the Bamako region (Czosnek and Laterrot, 1997); identity confirmed by sequencing (Zhou et al., 2008).
Morocco: First found in 1998 on tomato crops in the coastal region near Casablanca, TYLCV was identified by sequencing (Peterschmit et al., 1999). At the same time, symptoms were also seen in tomato crops in the north-eastern region of Morocco, causing crop losses of between 20 and 100%. Probably imported into Morocco on grafted tomato plants from the Netherlands. It constitutes a major problem today (Monci et al., 2000).
Nigeria: Present in the Zaria region. Identification confirmed by sequencing (Hong and Harrison, 1995). TYLCV from Nigeria (TYLCNV) is not closely related to other TYLCV isolates.
Réunion Island: TYLCV-Mld was introduced in 1997 and TYLCV-IL in 2004. A 5-year survey (2004-2008) of the viral population implicated in the tomato yellow leaf curl disease showed that TYLCV-IL was found to rapidly displace TYLCV-Mld. In 2008, TYLCV-Mld was only found in co-infections with TYLCV-IL (Delatte et al., 2007).
Senegal: Widespread along the Senegal River, Casamance and Dakar regions where many tomato fields have been abandoned (Defrancq D'hondt and Russo, 1985).
Sudan: Identified in the early 1960s (Yassin and Nour, 1965); widespread in tomato-growing regions (Yassin, 1989). Two distinct viral genotypes were identified in the same tomato plant collected from Gezira, Sudan; a third genotype was identified in tomato samples collected in Shambat (Idris and Brown, 2005).
Tanzania: Widespread and economically important. A virus species distinct from the Mediterranean isolates has been sequenced (Chiang et al., 1997).
Tunisia: Present in the regions of Tunis, Sousse and Southern oasis (Cherif and Russo, 1983; Czosnek and Laterrot, 1997). Identity was confirmed by sequencing (Chouchane et al., 2007).
Western Hemisphere
Bahamas: A virus with a sequence similar to the TYLCV isolate from Israel has been identified (Sinisterra et al., 2000).
Cuba: TYLCV was first detected in the early 1990s and is now widespread. Sequencing indicated a close relationship with the TYLCV isolate from Israel (Martinez-Zubiaur et al., 1996; Ramos et al., 1996). It has also been reported in pepper (Quiñones et al., 2002).
Dominican Republic: The virus was first identified as TYLCV in 1992. Sequencing has indicated that the virus is closely related to TYLCV from Israel (Nakhla et al., 1994; Polston et al., 1994). Widespread.
Grenada: In 2007, severe symptoms of tomato yellow leaf curl disease were observed on tomato in six sites on Grenada Island. Sequencing confirmed the presence of TYLCV-IL (Lett et al., 2011).
Jamaica: The most widespread tomato disease, often resulting in 100% crop loss. Since 1991, farmers in south St. Elizabeth have reported losses in their tomato crops to 'jherri curl' disease, which is caused by TYLCV. Sequencing has indicated that this virus is similar to the Eastern Mediterranean TYLCV isolates (Wernecke et al., 1997).
Mexico: In 1999, samples collected in Yucatan were found to be infected by TYLCV (Ascencio-Ibanez et al., 1999). In 2005, TYLCV was identified in Sinaloa (Brown and Idris, 2006).The current incidence of the disease is low and the virus is spreading slowly. The TYLCV isolates from Mexico are closely related to the Eastern Mediterranean TYLCV (Duffy and Holmes, 2007).
Puerto Rico: Found in 2001 in one tomato field on the southern coast of the island (Bird et al., 2001).
Trinidad and Tobago: Widespread, causes a serious threat to the tomato industry (Umaharan et al., 1998). Identity not confirmed by sequencing.
USA
Florida: The first report of TYLCV in the USA came from commercial plantings from Virginia. The tomato plants had been produced in a screenhouse in Manatee county, Florida (Polston, 1998). In July 1997, symptoms characteristic of TYLCV were observed on one tomato plant in a field in Collier County and on several tomato plants in a garden centre in Sarasota. Sequencing indicated that the virus was closely related to TYLCV-IL (Polston et al., 1999a, b). In October 1998, the virus was found in Gadsen County, northern Florida. Spreading, now present in almost all tomato-growing counties (Polston et al., 1999a).
Georgia: First found in Decatur County (south Georgia), with few occurrences since. Identity has been confirmed by sequencing (Momol et al., 1999).
Louisiana: Present, confirmed by sequencing (Valverde et al., 2001).
North Carolina: Symptoms observed in the summers of 2000 and 2001 in Henderson County. The sequence was closely related to the Eastern Mediterranean TYLCV isolates (Polston et al., 2002).
Mississipi: In January 2001, mild symptoms were observed in a greenhouse tomato production operation in east-central Mississippi. Whiteflies were present in the greenhouse during the previous month, but in relatively low numbers. PCR indicated the presence of TYLCV but the strain was not determined (Ingram and Henn, 2001).
Arizona: TYLCV found in the region of Phoenix in 2006, close to TYLCV-IL (Idris et al., 2007).
Venezuela: During 2004, tomato plants showing symptoms similar to those of TYLCV were observed in commercial fields in Zulia state. Sequencing of PCR amplicons from tomato plants sampled in the field showed the presence of TYLCV homologous to TYLCV-Mld from Spain and Portugal and TYLCV from Israel and Mexico (Zambrano et al., 2007).
Distribution Table
Top of pageThe 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.
Last updated: 21 Jul 2022Continent/Country/Region | Distribution | Last Reported | Origin | First Reported | Invasive | Reference | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Africa |
|||||||
Algeria | Present, Few occurrences | ||||||
Benin | Present | ||||||
Burkina Faso | Present, Widespread | ||||||
Cabo Verde | Present | ||||||
Côte d'Ivoire | Present | ||||||
Egypt | Present, Widespread | In Fayoum, Ismailia and Giza Governorates; First reported: early 1970s | |||||
Ghana | Present | ||||||
Libya | Present | ||||||
Mali | Present | In Bamako region. | |||||
Mauritius | Present | ||||||
Morocco | Present | 1998 | Mediterranean and Atlantic coastal regions. Originating from Eastern and Western Mediterranean basin. | ||||
Nigeria | Present | In Zaria region; First reported: early 1990s | |||||
Réunion | Present | Present all over the island. Originated in Middle East. | |||||
Senegal | Present, Widespread | Widespread along the Senegal River, Casamance and Dakar regions; First reported: early 1960s | |||||
Sudan | Present | Gezira and Shambat regions; First reported: early 1960s | |||||
Tanzania | Present, Widespread | From Eastern Mediterranean basin. | |||||
Tunisia | Present | Present in the regions of Tunis, Sousse and Southern oasis. Origin in Western Mediterranean basin; First reported: early 1980s | |||||
Asia |
|||||||
Azerbaijan | Present | ||||||
Bahrain | Present | ||||||
Bangladesh | Present | ||||||
China | Present, Localized | 2000 | |||||
-Anhui | Present | ||||||
-Beijing | Present | ||||||
-Guangdong | Present | ||||||
-Guangxi | Present | 2007 | |||||
-Hebei | Present | 2007 | |||||
-Heilongjiang | Present | ||||||
-Hubei | Present | ||||||
-Inner Mongolia | Present | ||||||
-Jiangsu | Present | ||||||
-Liaoning | Present | ||||||
-Shandong | Present | 2007 | |||||
-Shanghai | Present | 2006 | |||||
-Shanxi | Present | ||||||
-Sichuan | Present | ||||||
-Yunnan | Present | 2007 | |||||
-Zhejiang | Present | 2007 | |||||
Georgia | Present | ||||||
India | Present | ||||||
-Assam | Present | ||||||
-Madhya Pradesh | Present | ||||||
Iran | Present, Localized | Native | Southern provinces; First reported: early 1990s | ||||
Iraq | Present | ||||||
Israel | Present | Native | Local TYLCV and TYLCSV from Sicily and Spain. In open field coastal region. Invaded Middle East and North America; First reported: 1960s | ||||
Japan | Present, Localized | ||||||
-Honshu | Present | ||||||
-Kyushu | Present | ||||||
Jordan | Present | 1978 | Jordan Valley, TYLCV-IL and TYLCVSV from Sicily and Spain. | ||||
Kuwait | Present | ||||||
Laos | Present | ||||||
Lebanon | Present, Widespread | First reported: 1970s | |||||
Nepal | Present | ||||||
Oman | Present | 1991 | |||||
Pakistan | Present | ||||||
Philippines | Absent, Unconfirmed presence record(s) | ||||||
Saudi Arabia | Present | Local and Eastern Mediterranean isolates. In the Al-Kharj and Qasim regions; First reported: late 1970s | |||||
South Korea | Present | 2008 | Southern part of the country. | ||||
Taiwan | Present | ||||||
Thailand | Present | Native | 1978 | ||||
Turkey | Present | 1980 | Eastern Mediterranean isolates. In Cukurova, Adana and Aegean regions. | ||||
United Arab Emirates | Present | ||||||
Yemen | Present | Present in the Abayan and Hadramauvat regions; First reported: 1970s | |||||
Europe |
|||||||
Austria | Absent | ||||||
Belgium | Absent, Confirmed absent by survey | ||||||
Cyprus | Present | 1985 | TYLCV-IL present in all tomato-growing areas. | ||||
France | Present, Few occurrences | 1999 | May be eradicated. | ||||
Greece | Present | 2000 | Present in Crete, Attiki and southern Peloponnese. Probably TYLCV-IL from Israel. | ||||
-Crete | Present, Widespread | ||||||
Italy | Present, Localized | 1988 | |||||
-Sardinia | Present | 1988 | Local species. | ||||
-Sicily | Present | 1989 | Local species. Also found in easter Mediterranean basin. | ||||
Malta | Present, Localized | ||||||
Netherlands | Absent, Eradicated | 2008 | Absent, pest eradicated (2008), confirmed by survey. Based on long-term annual surveys, 130 survey observations in 2012. | ||||
Portugal | Present, Localized | ||||||
Slovenia | Absent | ||||||
Spain | Present, Localized | 1992 | TYLCV from Sardinia and from Israel. | ||||
-Balearic Islands | Present, Localized | ||||||
-Canary Islands | Present | ||||||
Switzerland | Present | ||||||
United Kingdom | Absent | ||||||
North America |
|||||||
Bahamas | Present, Localized | 2000 | From Eastern Mediterranean basin. | ||||
Costa Rica | Present | ||||||
Cuba | Present, Widespread | From Eastern Mediterranean basin; First reported: early 1990s; Original citation: Martinez-Zubiaur et al. (1996) | |||||
Dominica | Present | ||||||
Dominican Republic | Present, Widespread | 1992 | From Eastern Mediterranean basin. | ||||
Grenada | Present, Widespread | 2007 | Present in several sites. From Eastern Mediterranean basin. | ||||
Guadeloupe | Present, Widespread | ||||||
Guatemala | Present | From Eastern Mediterranean basin. | |||||
Jamaica | Present | 1993 | Present in all tomato-growing areas. Originating from Eastern Mediterranean basin. | ||||
Martinique | Present | ||||||
Mexico | Present | 1999 | Present in Yucatan and Sinaloa provinces. Origin in Eastern Mediterranean basin; Original citation: Ascencio-Ibanez et al. (1999) | ||||
Puerto Rico | Present, Few occurrences | 2001 | |||||
Saint Kitts and Nevis | Present, Localized | ||||||
Trinidad and Tobago | Present, Widespread | ||||||
United States | Present, Localized | ||||||
-Alabama | Present | ||||||
-Arizona | Present | 2006 | Present in Phoenix area. | ||||
-California | Present | ||||||
-Florida | Present, Widespread | 1997 | Widespread in all tomato-growing regions. | ||||
-Georgia | Present, Few occurrences | 1999 | |||||
-Hawaii | Present | ||||||
-Kentucky | Present | ||||||
-Louisiana | Present | ||||||
-Mississippi | Present | 2001 | Present in East Central counties. | ||||
-North Carolina | Present | ||||||
-South Carolina | Present, Localized | ||||||
-Texas | Present | ||||||
Oceania |
|||||||
Australia | Present, Localized | 2006 | Restricted to Northern Territory. TYLCV related to Middle Eastern strains. | ||||
-Northern Territory | Present | 2006 | TYLCV related to Middle Eastern strains. | ||||
-Queensland | Present | ||||||
French Polynesia | Present | ||||||
New Caledonia | Present | ||||||
South America |
|||||||
Venezuela | Present | 2004 | Present in Zulia state. TYLCV-Mld from Spain and Portugal and TYLCV from Israel and Mexico. |
History of Introduction and Spread
Top of pageWithin less than 25 years TYLCV has spread from the Middle East to North America, Africa, Europe and Far East Asia (Czosnek, 2010). In 1959 tomatoes grown in the Jordan valley, Israel, became infected by an agent identified as a whitefly-transmitted viral agent. The virus was named Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) (Cohen and Harpaz, 1964). It was isolated in 1988, proven to be monopartite and sequenced in 1991 (Czosnek et al., 1988; Navot et al., 1991). From the early 1960s, Tomato yellow leaf curl disease has quickly spread to the entire Middle East and is presently found in many regions of Africa, America and Asia. It was reported in the mid and late 1970s in Cyprus, Jordan and Lebanon. It was identified in Egypt and Turkey in the early 1980s, and in the mid-late 1990s in Iran, the Asian republics of the former USSR, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. In the early 1990s, the disease has been identified in Italy, Spain and Portugal, and later in France and Greece. In Morocco and Tunisia it was identified in the early 2000s. In East Africa, Tomato yellow leaf curl disease was present in Sudan as early as the late 1970s. In the Réunion Island the disease was detected in the late 1990s. It has appeared in the Western Hemisphere in the mid-1990s in the Caribbean Islands, first in the Dominican Republic, then Cuba, Jamaica, Puerto Rico and the Bahamas. From there, the disease has reached the USA, identified first in Virginia in the late 1990s, then in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, North Carolina and Mississippi. Tomato yellow leaf curl disease has been identified in several regions of Australia (2003), Mexico (2007), in Arizona and in California (2007).
Sequencing of begomoviruses inducing Tomato yellow leaf curl disease has shown that it was not induced by a single virus species. The TYLCV type from Israel has been found in regions as diverse as Spain (Moriones and Navas-Castillo, 2000), Japan (Kato et al., 1998), China (Wu et al., 2006), Australia (Tesoriero and Azzopardi, 2006) and Venezuela (Zambrano et al., 2007). A second TYLCV species was described in Israel and coined Tomato yellow leaf curl virus Mild (TYLCV-Mld) (Antignus and Cohen, 1994). A new TYLCV-like species was discovered in Sardinia Italy in the early 1990s and was named Tomato yellow leaf curl Sardinia virus (TYLCSV) (Kheyr-Pour et al., 1991). A relative of TYLCSV was identified in Sicily (Crespi et al., 1995). TYLCSV has spread since to Spain, Morocco and Tunisia (Sánchez-Campos et al., 1999; Chouchane et al., 2006; El Mehrach et al., 2007). TYLCV and TYLCSV recombinants have also been found (Monci et al., 2001). The spread of TYLCV westward causing the displacement of the endogenous TYLCSV, especially in Spain (Sánchez-Campos et al., 1999) and the invasion of the Americas have led to the assumption that TYLCV-associated diseases radiate from the Middle East. However in a recent study, besides the endogenous TYLCV and TYLCV-Mld species, the Sicilian strain of TYLCSV and a Spanish strain of TYLCSV (TYLCSV-ES) have been found in Jordan and Israel demonstrating that TYLCSV has spread eastward (Anfoka et al., 2008).
Recent multiple introduction of members of the TYLCV complex in Spain provides an excellent model to analyse aspects of adaptation and evolution of an invading virus population (Sánchez-Campos et al., 1999, 2002). Initial colonization with isolates of the Spanish strain of Tomato yellow leaf curl Sardinia virus (TYLCSV-ES) during the early 1990s, resulted in a relatively stable population in which reduced genetic diversity was observed (Sánchez-Campos et al., 2002). Subsequent introductions of TYLCV and TYLCV-Mld (Navas-Castillo et al., 1999; Morilla et al., 2003) resulted in novel sources of variation and conditions for recombination to occur. This was the case of the novel recombinant variant named Tomato yellow leaf curl Málaga virus (TYLCMalV) that emerged as a result of a genetic exchange between TYLCSV-ES and TYLCV-Mld. This natural recombinant variant showed to be better adapted ecologically than either parental virus and spread rapidly in the population (Monci et al., 2002).
The Réunion Island provides a case study of a multiple introduction and spread of exotic TYLCV and its vector in a closed environment TYLCV-Mld was introduced in 1997 and TYLCV-IL in 2004. A 5-year survey (2004-2008) of the viral population showed that TYLCV-IL was found to rapidly displace TYLCV-Mld. In 2008, TYLCV-Mld was only found in co-infections with TYLCV-IL. This TYLCV switch was paralleled with the invasion of the B. tabaci B biotype, displacing the local Ms biotype (Delatte et al., 2006, 2007).
Smuggling of infected plants, commercial shipment of infected seedlings, translocation of viruliferous whiteflies by winds, or by plane transportation (e.g. on ornamentals) can be instrumental in the expansion of TYLCV. The newcomer may have a better interaction with the whitefly vector than the endogenous geminiviruses. For example, the new recombinant TYLCMalV became prevalent in Spain because of its better acquisition by the whiteflies and its broader host range than both of its parents (Monci et al., 2002).
Introductions
Top of pageHabitat List
Top of pageCategory | Sub-Category | Habitat | Presence | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|
Terrestrial | Managed | Cultivated / agricultural land | Principal habitat | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Terrestrial | Managed | Protected agriculture (e.g. glasshouse production) | Secondary/tolerated habitat | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
Hosts/Species Affected
Top of pageThe domesticated tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is the primary host of TYLCV. Most of the wild tomato species such as S. chilense, S. habrochaites, S. peruvianum and S. pimpinellifolium include accessions that are symptomless carriers (Zakay et al., 1991) or are immune (Vidavsky and Czosnek, 1998) to the virus. Several cultivated plants are hosts of TYLCV and present severe symptoms upon whitefly-mediated inoculation: bean (Phaseolus vulgaris), petunia (Petunia hybrida) and lisianthus (Eustoma grandiflorum). Weeds such as Datura stramonium and Cynanchum acutum present distinct symptoms whereas others such as Malva parviflora are symptomless carriers. A recent survey in Cyprus showed that 49 different species belonging to the families Amaranthaceae, Chenopodiaceae, Compositae, Convolvulaceae, Cruciferae, Euphorbiaceae, Geraniaceae, Leguminosae, Malvaceae, Orobanchaceae, Plantaginaceae, Primulaceae, Solanaceae, Umbelliferae and Urticaceae were TYLCV hosts (Papayiannis et al., 2011). Plants used to rear whiteflies, such as cotton and aubergine, are immune to the virus. Experimental hosts of the virus include tomato (S. lycopersicum) and jimsonweed (D. stramonium).
Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
Top of pageSymptoms
Top of pageList of Symptoms/Signs
Top of pageSign | Life Stages | Type |
---|---|---|
Leaves / abnormal colours | ||
Leaves / abnormal forms | ||
Leaves / abnormal patterns | ||
Stems / stunting or rosetting | ||
Whole plant / dwarfing |
Biology and Ecology
Top of page
Transmission
TYLCV is transmitted by the whitefly, Bemisia tabaci (Cohen and Harpaz, 1964), which is commonly found in tropical and subtropical countries. B. tabaci has a very wide host range of at least six plant families (Cohen and Antignus, 1994). Colonies of B. tabaci are usually established under laboratory conditions on TYLCV non-host plants such as cotton, aubergine or jimsonweed (Datura stramonium) in a greenhouse or in a growth chamber.
Virus-Vector Relationship
TYLCV is transmitted naturally by B. tabaci in a persistent manner. The efficient acquisition access period is 15-30 minutes, the latent period is 8-24 hours, and the efficient inoculation access period is at least 15 minutes (Cohen and Nitzany, 1966; Mansour and Al-Musa, 1992; Mehta et al., 1994; Ghanim et al., 2001). The virus can be detected in every stage of vector development (Ghanim et al., 1998). Female B. tabaci are more efficient vectors than males; transmission capacities decrease as the insect ages (Czosnek et al., 2001). Following a 48 h acquisition access period on infected tomato, TYLCV DNA remains associated with B. tabaci for the entire adult life of the insect; infectivity decreases with time, but remains significant (Rubinstein and Czosnek, 1997). Symptoms develop on inoculated tomato seedlings 2 to 3 weeks after insect-mediated inoculation. The presence of TYLCV in the egg of the whitefly vector suggests transovarial passage (Ghanim et al., 1998).
Epidemiology
Tomato yellow leaf curl disease can be observed in tomato fields throughout the affected regions. The virus is transmitted to tomato plants after vector feeding on infected tomato plants or alternative hosts. The disease is first observed on tomato seedlings about 3 weeks after transplanting. Disease incidence increases rapidly and can reach 100% infection at harvest. In nature, the virus is only transmitted by the whitefly B. tabaci. In affected regions, the incidence of the disease is directly correlated with the pressure of the whitefly population (Mazyad et al., 1979).
TYLCV epidemiology has been studied thoroughly in the Jordan Valley, Israel (Cohen, 1990). B. tabaci populations start to increase in May-June and peak in September-October and decrease to minimum levels in December. The gender prevalent in the whitefly population varies from predominantly males in the winter to predominantly females in the summer. The weed Cynanchum acutum seems to be the overwintering reservoir of the virus, although it is a poor host for B. tabaci. There is a positive correlation between B. tabaci population size and the spread of TYLCV. Winds influence the spread of the virus. The main flight activity takes place during the morning hours, sometimes with a short peak in the late afternoon. The longest flight distance measured was 7 km. During the peak whitefly season, which corresponds to the time of tomato planting (August-September), 2000 to 20,000 whiteflies land weekly on each square metre, thus ensuring high levels of infection within a short time. At this time, the maximum level of whiteflies able to transmit TYLCV to test plants in the laboratory is 4-5% of the population present in the field.
Using DNA probes, the time course of infection has been followed recently in the coastal plain, Israel, where TYLCV infection and whitefly populations are at their peak during August to October (Vidavski et al., 1998). Samples were taken every 7-10 days from the shoot apex of 122 plants up to 89 days after transplanting and tested for the presence of viral DNA using the squash blot hybridization procedure (Navot et al., 1989). Inoculation in the field seems to be at random, as the location of plants free of viral DNA does not point to 'hot spots' of escapes. Although the field was swarming with whiteflies from the first day of planting, only 32% of plants exhibited detectable amounts of viral DNA 17 days after transplanting. This value increased to 64% 39 days after transplanting and to 90% 60 days thereafter. Thus, even 3 months after planting, about 10% of the plants did not contain detectable amounts of viral DNA. Such a high level of escapes may interfere in the selection of resistant/tolerant individuals and makes progress in the breeding programme problematic.
Climate
Top of pageClimate | Status | Description | Remark |
---|---|---|---|
A - Tropical/Megathermal climate | Preferred | Average temp. of coolest month > 18°C, > 1500mm precipitation annually | |
Am - Tropical monsoon climate | Preferred | Tropical monsoon climate ( < 60mm precipitation driest month but > (100 - [total annual precipitation(mm}/25])) | |
As - Tropical savanna climate with dry summer | Preferred | < 60mm precipitation driest month (in summer) and < (100 - [total annual precipitation{mm}/25]) | |
B - Dry (arid and semi-arid) | Preferred | < 860mm precipitation annually | |
BW - Desert climate | Tolerated | < 430mm annual precipitation | |
C - Temperate/Mesothermal climate | Preferred | Average temp. of coldest month > 0°C and < 18°C, mean warmest month > 10°C | |
Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer | Preferred | Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers | |
Ds - Continental climate with dry summer | Preferred | Continental climate with dry summer (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, dry summers) |
Air Temperature
Top of pageParameter | Lower limit | Upper limit |
---|---|---|
Absolute minimum temperature (ºC) | 12 | 15 |
Mean annual temperature (ºC) | 22 | 40 |
Mean maximum temperature of hottest month (ºC) | 22 | 45 |
Mean minimum temperature of coldest month (ºC) | 16 | 18 |
Means of Movement and Dispersal
Top of pageIn nature, the dispersal of TYLCV is dependent on the movement of its sole vector , the whitefly Bemisia tabaci. Insects are usually sedentary. Once they land on a tomato plant, they feed and lay eggs. In the infected tomato field, it is common for a single plant to host several hundred insects. Whiteflies seldom move to another plant unless disturbed by winds, animals or human activities. It seems that the various whitefly biotypes disperse equally (Matsuura and Hoshino, 2008). Studies carried out in the Jordan Valley in Israel have shown that B. tabaci is able to fly (or be carried by air streams) for distances greater than 10 km (Cohen et al., 1988). Entire whitefly populations move from one host to another, especially during harvesting, for example, from cotton to nearby tomato fields, or from pepper to tomato (tomato is harvested later than cotton and pepper).
The movement of B. tabaci biotypes is intricately related to the movement of TYLCV. The accidental import of B. tabaci in several countries is well documented (Caciagli, 2007). Biotype A was taken to Brazil in 1928 and biotype B in the early 1990s (Oliveira et al., 2005). Biotype B was imported to the USA sometimes before 1986 and then invaded the southern states (Culotta, 1991). Whiteflies can sustain temperature and humidity prevalent during international transportation by air or ship. Once B. tabaci is present it is almost impossible to eradicate despite quarantine restrictions (Kahan, 1982). Illegal smuggling of agricultural produce is a major factor in the invasion of viruses and their insect vectors. The introduction of TYLCV in the USA was traced back to illegal introduction of B. tabaci B biotype. Prior to the appearance of this insect, only three viruses were known to infect tomato in the Western Hemisphere, but none occurred in the USA. However within 10 years, 17 highly damaging geminiviruses had appeared and were causing enormous losses in tomato production throughout the Western Hemisphere (Polston and Anderson 1997). For example, just prior to 1992, TYLCV was introduced on tomato transplants probably from Israel into the Dominican Republic. One year later this whitefly-geminivirus combination destroyed tomato production in the Dominican Republic (Polston et al., 1994). TYLCV soon appeared in Jamaica and Cuba, and in 1997 it was discovered in Florida (Polston et al., 1999). From there, TYLCV quickly invaded the southern states of the USA and Mexico.
Seedborne Aspects
Top of pagePathway Causes
Top of pageCause | Notes | Long Distance | Local | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Crop production | Switch of hosts during and after harvest. | Yes | Yes | Cohen et al. (1988) |
Cut flower trade | Virus insect vector (whitefly) on ornamental plants. | Yes | Cohen et al. (1995) | |
Horticulture | Whitefly host switch during harvest. | Yes | ||
Nursery trade | Export/import of infected seedlings. | Yes | Polston and Anderson (1997) | |
Smuggling | Infected seedlings? | Yes | Polston and Anderson (1997) |
Pathway Vectors
Top of pageVector | Notes | Long Distance | Local | References |
---|---|---|---|---|
Aircraft | Yes | Caciagli (2007) | ||
Host and vector organisms | Yes | Yes | Czosnek (2007b) | |
Wind | Yes | Yes | Cohen et al. (1988) |
Plant Trade
Top of pagePlant parts liable to carry the pest in trade/transport | Pest stages | Borne internally | Borne externally | Visibility of pest or symptoms |
---|---|---|---|---|
Seedlings/Micropropagated plants |
Vectors and Intermediate Hosts
Top of pageVector | Source | Reference | Group | Distribution |
---|---|---|---|---|
Bemisia tabaci | EFSA Panel on Plant Health (2013) | Insect | Tropics |
Impact
Top of pageTYLCV was first described from Israel and until the late 1980s was known as a problem in the eastern Mediterranean. Since then, the geographic distribution of TYLCV has increased to include countries in the Western Mediterranean, Central Asia, North and sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean, Mexico, the USA, Central and Southern America, Japan and Australia. TYLCV causes heavy economic losses wherever it occurs, although initially after introduction losses may be relatively low. Although TYLCV has a broad host range, infecting more than 30 species in over 12 plant families, it is primarily known as one of the most damaging viruses to infect tomatoes. The virus affects yields by greatly reducing the number of fruit produced. Fruit developing at the time of infection remain on the plant, but very few fruit will set once infection has occurred. Experimental studies from many locations document the dramatic effect that TYLCV has on the yield of tomato. Inoculation of tomato plants 3 weeks after transplanting in the field in Lebanon showed a 63% reduction in yield compared with non-infected plants (Makkouk et al., 1979). Studies in the glasshouse in Jordan revealed that inoculation with TYLCV 10 weeks after sowing reduced yields by 63%, whereas inoculations at 15 weeks did not reduce yields significantly (Al-Musa, 1982). In cultivar evaluation trials in Cyprus, yields of more than half the cultivars tested were reduced by 50 to 80% (Ioannou, 1985). Field trials in Israel using tomato transplants of susceptible cultivars inoculated at the first true leaf stage, demonstrated a 99% reduction in the yield of inoculated plants compared with non-inoculated plants (Pilowsky et al., 1993). In field studies in Turkey, two susceptible tomato cultivars showed yield reductions of 60 and 70%, respectively. In a study in commercial tomato fields in Florida, TYLCV significantly reduced the number of fruit, but not the fruit size, compared with non-infected plants (Polston et al., 1999b). The younger the plants were at the time of infection, the more severe the reduction in fruit number.
Documentation of losses to commercial production, although dramatic, is rare. Severe reductions in tomato yields in 1995 were reported from Portugal (Louro et al., 1996). A survey conducted in Réunion Island from 1997 to 1998 indicated that of 123 commercial sites examined, 52 had at least one TYLCV infected plant; of these, 11 exhibited a 40-60% yield reduction, and 14 a 60-100% yield reduction (Peterschmit et al., 1999). In the Dominican Republic, annual yield losses for the Azua valley in the southern part of the country ranged between 20 and 95% from 1988 to 1995. In the northern part of the Dominican Republic, annual losses for that region peaked in 1993 at 80% (Alvarez and Abud-Atun, 1995). Losses of 30% were reported from Cuba for the 1990-1991 season (Calixto et al., 1995). Another report states a 100% loss of tomato crops from the La Habana area of Cuba (Ramos et al., 1996). In the USA, incidences of TYLCV-infected tomatoes have remained low due in part to aggressive intervention by tomato growers. Most growers suffered only minor losses in 1997-2000 production seasons, although a few growers (less than 10%) had greater than 50% crop loss in 1998.
In addition to tomato, TYLCV was reported to cause severe losses in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) in commercial production in Israel (Navot et al., 1992) and in southern Spain (Navas-Castillo et al., 1999), and the virus was reported to be a limiting factor in the production of lisianthus (Eustoma grandiflora) in Israel (Cohen et al., 1995).
Environmental Impact
Top of pageWhitefly populations are usually controlled with heavy, sometimes daily, insecticides sprays. More than 50 conventional insecticides are registered for use against B. tabaci. Most insecticides are not selective and also destroy the whitefly natural enemies. Some whitefly biotypes have developed resistance to most insecticides. The Q biotype present in the Middle East, Spain and Arizona (USA) is resistant to many of the commonly used insecticides for managing whiteflies, including the pyrethroids, neonicotinoids, pymetrozine and insect growth regulators. A resistance monitoring programme for the neonicotinoids in southern Florida (USA) has found that tolerance in biotype B has increased eight-fold on average from 2000 to 2006 for imidacloprid and about 15-fold from 2003 to 2006 for thiamethoxam - Platinum (Schuster et al., 2007). To reduce insecticide regimen and minimize the impact on environment and biodiversity, it was recommended to establish a 2-months crop-free period, to disturb the whitefly cycle by creating a time break between autumn and spring crops, to alternate insecticides, not to apply insecticides on weeds on field perimeters that could kill whitefly natural enemies and, thus, interfere with biological control (Schuster et al., 2007).
Social Impact
Top of pageTomato constitutes an important component of the diet in the countries surrounding the Mediterranean sea, Sub-Saharan Africa, Central and South-East Asia, the Caribbean Islands, Mexico and Central America. Many fields are small, family owned and managed by women and children. Tomato constitutes a substantial income for the growers. TYLCV threatens tomato production; usually infected fields do not produce and the entire crop may be lost. Spraying insecticides has been the method of choice to control the TYLCV whitefly vector, sometimes daily. This of course constitutes a financial burden, endangers the health of the farmers and contaminates the environment. Farmers borrow money to buy new seeds expecting a virus-free season. Often, the debts are so high that the fields are sold and the farmers emigrate to other countries, most of the time illegally. In some regions, tomato fields, and even tomato processing factories, have been totally abandoned (Central America, Sub-Saharan Africa).
Risk and Impact Factors
Top of page- Invasive in its native range
- Proved invasive outside its native range
- Has a broad native range
- Abundant in its native range
- Highly adaptable to different environments
- Has high genetic variability
- Ecosystem change/ habitat alteration
- Host damage
- Increases vulnerability to invasions
- Negatively impacts agriculture
- Negatively impacts cultural/traditional practices
- Negatively impacts human health
- Negatively impacts livelihoods
- Reduced native biodiversity
- Threat to/ loss of native species
- Damages animal/plant products
- Negatively impacts trade/international relations
- Pest and disease transmission
- Interaction with other invasive species
- Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
- Highly likely to be transported internationally deliberately
- Highly likely to be transported internationally illegally
- Difficult/costly to control
Diagnosis
Top of page
Accurate diagnosis of TYLCV is best achieved using methods based on virus-specific DNA probes and PCR primers derived from the sequence of the viral genome. TYLCV can be detected in tissues of infected plants as well as in insect vectors. Monoclonal as well as polyclonal antibodies do not have such a level of specificity and may detect several begomoviruses.
1. Molecular DNA-DNA Hybridization
1.1. Southern blot hybridization
Plant DNA may be prepared according to the CTAB-based method (Taylor and Powell, 1982) and whitefly DNA is extracted with SDS-Proteinase K (Zeidan and Czosnek, 1991). DNA is subjected to agarose gel electrophoresis, blotted, pre-hybridized and hybridized with a virus-specific DNA probe as described (Ber et al., 1990). The probe may consist of the full-length viral genome or virus species-specific sequences such as the intergenic region. The probe is labelled either with a radioactive nucleotide (e.g. 32P-adCTP) or with a non-radioactive nucleotide (e.g. digoxygenin-11-dUTP). The blots are then washed at 65°C for 30 min (twice) in 150 mM NaCl and 15 mM trisodium citrate (1 x SSC). Washing the blot at 70°C in 0.1 x SSC allows discrimination between closely related TYLCV isolates, such as viruses from Israel and from Italy (Czosnek et al., 2001). If the probe is radiolabelled, the blot is exposed to an X-ray film. For non-radioactive probing, the blot is subjected to immunological detection. After blocking, the filter is incubated with an anti digoxygenin alkaline phosphatase conjugate (diluted 1:5000). After washing, the filter may be incubated with the alkaline phosphatase substrates Nitro Blue Tetrazolium (NBT) and 5-Bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl phosphate (BCIP), until a dark blue colour is obtained. Alternatively the virus-probe complex can be detected by chemiluminescence (Caciagli and Bosco, 1996). Non-radioactive digoxygenin-labelled DNA probes can be almost as sensitive as radioactive probes.
1.2. Tissue print hybridization
TYLCV DNA sequences can be detected specifically and sensitively by hybridization of infected plant tissues squashed onto a nylon membrane (squash-blot) with a radiolabelled specific DNA probe (Navot et al., 1989). No treatment of the sample is necessary prior to squashing and hybridization. TYLCV DNA could be detected in squash-blots of tomato leaves, roots, stems, flowers and fruits. Viral sequences can also be detected in squashes of a single whitefly that has fed on infected tomato plants. An assay that can be used in the field for the detection of TYLCV has been developed (Zilberstein et al., 1989). Plant and insect tissue squashes are hybridized with sulfonated virus complementary (-) strand DNA produced from a full-length DNA clone using the M13K07 helper phage. A mouse monoclonal antibody binds to the sulfone groups of the DNA hybrid; this complex is recognized by a goat anti-mouse immunoglobulin antibody conjugated to alkaline phosphatase which enzyme transforms a colourless substrate into a coloured product, indicating the presence of viral nucleic acids. Virus can be detected in stems, leaves, roots, flowers and fruits. It can also be detected in the whitefly vector, at the individual level.
2. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)
PCR is widely used for the diagnosis of geminiviral diseases, allowing the detection of very small amounts of the disease agent in the infected plant and vectors, and also the cloning of genomic fragments of the pathogen. The following cycling protocol can be used to amplify the full-length TYLCV genome or viral DNA fragments from infected plants (50 ng DNA) or from viruliferous whiteflies (10 ng): initial denaturation for 3 min at 95°C, annealing of primers (0.2 mM each) for 1 min at 55°C, extension for 2 min at 72°C, and denaturation for 1 min at 94°C; subsequent cycles are: 1 min at 55°C, 2 min at 72°C and 1 min at 94°C; after 30 cycles, the reaction is terminated by a 10 min incubation at 72°C (Navot et al., 1992). The PCR products are subjected to agarose gel electrophoresis, stained with ethidium bromide and photographed. The primers are deduced from the sequence of the virus genome. Amplification of the full-length TYLCV genome can be achieved using primers V41 (nucleotides 61-80, from 5' to 3': ATACTTGGACACCTAATGGC) and C60 (nucleotides 41-60: AAGTAAGACACCGATACACC). Specific primers can be designed to discriminate between TYLCV species, e.g. from Israel (TYLCV) and from Sardinia, Italy (TYLCSV). For example, the TYLCV primers V2325 (nt 2325-2350, 5'CGTAGGTCTTGACATCTGTTGAGCTC3') and C2714 (nt 2714-2690, 5'CAAATAGCCATTAGGTGTCCAAGTA3') allow amplification of a 385 bp DNA from TYLCV from Israel (but not from TYLCSV). Conversely, the TYLCSV primers VS2308 (nt 2308-2333 viral strand, 5'TATAGGA CTTGACGTCGGAGCTCGAT3') and CS2698 (nt 2698-2670, complementary strand, 5'GGGG GCATCATATATATTGCCCCCCAATT3') allowing amplification of a 390 bp DNA fragment of TYLSCV (but not from TYLCV) (Goldman and Czosnek, 2002). Multiplex PCR with virus-specific primers was used to detect TYLCV-IL, TYLCV-Mld and TYLCSV in tomato samples from Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon (Anfoka et al., 2008)
TYLCV DNA can be amplified by PCR using plant and insect tissues squashed on a membrane as a template (Atzmon et al., 1998; Navas-Castillo et al., 1998). Samples are used as is. They may be stored in a dry state for several weeks without using their capacity to serve as template for PCR. Practically, a strip of 1 x 2 mm containing the tissue print is cut and immersed into the 25 ml PCR mix contained in a vial before initiation of amplification. Cycling and analysis of products is as described above.
3. Rolling-circle amplification
The rolling circle mode of geminivirus replication can be used for their diagnosis (Jeske, 2007). TYLCV, like any other geminivirus, can be amplified from total DNA of infected plants using the bacteriophage phi29 DNA polymerase. The amplified viral DNA induced typical symptoms after biolistic inoculation of test plants. Infectious DNA was obtained successfully from fresh, freeze-dried or desiccated plant material, from squashes of plant leaves on FTA cards, as well as from the insect vector. Plant material collected and dried as long as 25 years ago yielded infectious DNA by this method (Guenoune-Gelbart et al., 2010).
4. Microarrays
Microarray-based platforms constitute a new tool in the ever challenging world of plant virus diagnosis. They have the potential to simultaneously detect a number of viruses in a single reaction. Oligonucleotides (40-70 nt-long) with sequences based on the viral genomes that are the object of potential diagnosis) are printed on a slide. In general the RNA or the DNA of the suspected plant is labelled with a fluorescent dye (during or after reverse transcription or PCR) and hybridized with the printed oligo targets on the slide array. The fluorescent spots are localized and the pathogen is identified (Boonham et al., 2007). This technology has been used to identify TYLCV in infected tomato plants (Tiberini et al., 2010).
5. Immunological Methods
5.1. ELISA
TYLCV can be detected by standard ELISA procedures; however, as for all immunological methods, the antibodies available are usually unable to distinguish TYLCV from closely-related begomoviruses, and unable to discriminate between TYLCV species and strains.
5.2. Dot immuno-binding assay (DIBA)
This detection procedure is a modification of that described by Hibi and Saito (1985). Sample preparation has been described by Poolpol (1986). The antiserum raised in rabbits against TYLCV is cross-absorbed with dried leaf powder of non-infected tomato tissue. One µl of crude sap obtained after crushing tissues from infected plants is spotted onto a nitrocellulose membrane. After blocking, the membrane is covered with the anti-TLYCV antibody, washed and incubated with alkaline phosphatase conjugated-goat anti-rabbit IgG, washed and incubated with the substrate solution (0.1% napthol AS-MX phosphate mixed with an equal volume of 6 mg/ml Fast Red TR salt in 0.2 M Tris-HCl, pH 8.2). The results are evaluated by colour development; a pink coloration on the sample spot is a positive reaction. The green colour of concentrated crude sap could interfere with the development of colour in a positive reaction.
5.3. Immune Electron Microscopy (IEM)
The trap-decoration method (Milne and Luisoni, 1977) can be used to detect TYLCV but it is not practical to use for the detection of the virus from large numbers of plant samples. Membrane-coated grids are floated on drops of 1:10 diluted antiserum, washed and floated on sap of infected plant. Washed grids are then floated on diluted (1:100) absorbed-antiserum to allow decoration of virus particles, washed and stained with 2% uranyl acetate. Virus particles are observed by transmission electron microscopy.
Detection and Inspection
Top of pageSymptom severity depends on the date of inoculation, tomato variety and whitefly pressure. Typical symptoms include curling and yellowing of young leaves and severe stunting. TYLCV and the strain involved are best identified by sequencing either full-length clones or PCR-amplified genomic DNA fragments using specific primers. Squash blot hybridization with a virus-specific DNA probe, followed by high stringency washes, also allows discrimination between viruses and their strains (see Diagnosis).
Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
Top of page
The DNA sequence of the genome (full-length or partial) of several tens of begomovirus species and strains infecting tomato available in public databases such as Genbank show that the many different begomoviruses that infect tomato are characterized by considerable genetic diversity. Some possess a monopartite genome (e.g. TYLCV, TYLCSV, TYLCCV, TLCV from southern India, Australia and Taiwan), while others have their genome split between two DNA molecules (e.g. TYLCTHV, TLCV from northern India, TGMV, TMoV, ToLCrV).
Nucleotide comparisons of the full-length genome or of selected areas (e.g. intergenic region, coat protein gene, Rep gene) have provided a glimpse into the phylogenetic relatedness of these viruses (Rybicki, 1994; Padidam et al., 1996; Nakhla and Maxwell, 1998; Brown et al., 2001; Abhary et al., 2007; Lefeuvre et al., 2010). Sequence comparisons of begomovirus genomes and open reading frames (ORF) has allowed these viruses to be grouped according to their geographical origin: 1) Middle East and Central Asia, 2) Western Mediterranean basin, 3) Indian subcontinent, 4) North and Sub-Saharan Africa, 5) East and South-East Asia and Australia, and 6) New World with subgroups including USA, Central and South America and the Caribbean Islands (except the newly introduced Middle Eastern TYLCV). Similarly, the whitefly Bemisia tabaci complex could be resolved into seven major groups on the basis of mitochondrial DNA markers, essentially overlapping the geographical distribution of begomoviruses (Brown, 2010; De Barro et al., 2011).
Based upon their sequence, TYLCV from Israel and from Egypt can be considered to be isolates of the same strain. The same is valid for TYLCV from Israel and from the Dominican Republic and Jamaica, indicating that TYLCV was recently introduced to the Caribbean from the Middle East. Similarly, the Sardinian and the Spanish isolates of TYLCV are almost identical and are therefore strains of the same species. On the other hand, the Italian and Israeli TYLCV isolates are different enough to be considered as two virus species. The Thai TYLCV isolate constitutes a separate species. The nucleotide sequence of TYLCTHV component B shows low homology with other bipartite begomoviruses (e.g. about 55% with TGMV and Squash leaf curl virus).
The geographically associated variation of tomato begomoviruses is best illustrated by the comparison of their coat protein (CP). Differences associated with geography are best exemplified when comparing the isolates from north and south Saudi Arabia, two regions separated by a large expanse of desert. Their capsid proteins share only 78% homology. The northern isolate is closely related to TYLCV from Israel (95% homology), while the southern isolate is not (81% homology). On the other hand, the Sicilian and Sardinian isolates of TYLCV are found on two islands separated by 300 km; nevertheless their capsid protein share 95% homology. In several cases, the coat protein of TYLCV is more homologous to the coat protein of other begomoviruses occurring in the same region than to TYLCV isolates from other regions. For example, the coat protein of TYLCV from Nigeria is more related to the local African cassava mosaic virus (ACMV) than to TYLCV from Thailand (80% vs. 76%), a fact that may point to adaptation of the geminivirus to its vector. Moreover, viruses in different geographical regions have different epitope profiles, whereas those from the same region have similar profiles (Macintosh et al., 1992). Differences in the sequence of the capsid protein may lead to differences in virus transmissibility by B. tabaci (McGrath and Harrison, 1995).
Prevention and Control
Top of pageDue 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.
Cultural Control
Growing tomato in open fields is much more constraining than growing under cover. In all regions where TYLCV is endemic, seedlings need to be grown and kept in a glasshouse or a screenhouse in order to prevent early infection by whitefly feeding. In Thailand, farmers grow tomato plants in isolated paddy fields after rice harvesting. In Egypt the spread of TYLCV in open fields was successfully controlled by roguing infected plants and removing all overwintered tomato crops before the emergence of whitefly populations (Mazyad et al., 1986). Similar measures were undertaken in Cyprus over 3 consecutive years resulting in a decrease in the incidence of the disease from 50 to 5% (Ioannou, 1987). In the Dominican Republic, a mandatory 3 months host-free growing period which included bean, cucurbits, aubergine, melon, okra, pepper and tomato, significantly reduced the inoculum and lowered to a minimum the incidence of TYLCV (Gilbertson et al., 2007). Early planting when the incidence of B. tabaci is low, effectively reduced TYLCV infection in Egypt, Israel and Cyprus. Interplanting with rows of TYLCV non-host trap plants such as squash and cucumber have been used to divert whiteflies from tomato in the Jordan Valley, delaying TYLCV infection by 2 months (Al-Musa, 1982). Sticky yellow plastic polyethylene sheets have been used, with limited success, to decrease the pressure of the whitefly population (Cohen et al., 1974). When economically feasible, growing tomatoes in greenhouses covered with insect-proof 50-mesh screens and double-doors constitutes the optimal solution for crop protection against the TYLCV whitefly vector (Cohen and Berlinger, 1986; Ioannou, 1987). UV-absorbing plastic sheets or UV-absorbing 50-mesh screens, used as tunnels or as screenhouse covers, greatly reduced the infestation of tomato plants by B. tabaci and the incidence of TYLCV (Antignus et al., 1998). Whitefly natural enemies (Gerling, 1990) have not been used on a large scale in open fields.
Chemical Control
Applying systemic insecticides as soil drenches or regular spraying during the seedling stage can reduce the population of the B. tabaci vector and the incidence of TYLCV. Many insecticides such as organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethroids effectively reduce the whitefly population, whether sprayed one insecticide at a time, alternately, or together with oil and emulsifiers (Makkouk and Laterrot, 1983). However, these insecticides provided only partial TYLCV control, even when sprayed daily (Cohen and Antignus, 1994). Continued extensive use of insecticides is not only detrimental to the environment but it promotes the development of resistant whitefly populations (Cahill et al., 1995). More potent insecticides with novel modes of action such as imidacloprid were introduced in the 1990s (Elbert et al., 1990). Over the past few years imidacloprid has assumed major importance for control of B. tabaci in the field and in greenhouses. To be efficient, the insecticide has to induce the death of all whiteflies within 35-40 min before it succeeds in infecting the plant, thereby preventing inoculation of TYLCV, which is not always the case in the field (Rubinstein et al., 1999). As for other commonly used insecticides, whitefly populations resistant to imidacloprid have been emerging in many places (Castle et al., 2010).
Host-Plant Resistance
Breeding programmes aimed at producing tomato cultivars resistant to TYLCV started in the late 1960s and have expanded since. These programmes are based on the introgression into the domesticated tomato Solanum lycopersicum of resistance or tolerance found in some accessions of wild tomato species such as S. cheesmaniae, S. chilense, S. habrochaites, S. peruvianum and S. pimpinellifolium. Depending on the plant source, resistance was reported to be controlled by one to five loci, either recessive or dominant (Zakay et al., 1991; Picó et al., 1996; Nakhla and Maxwell, 1998). The first commercial tolerant cultivar, TY20 (Hazera) carrying tolerance from S. peruvianum, showed delayed symptoms and the accumulation of viral DNA (Pilowski and Cohen, 1990; Lapidot et al., 1997). More advanced cultivars derived from TY-20 include 8484 and 8472. Additional commercial hybrids tolerant to TYLCV include Anastasia (Brunsma), Silver, Beludo and Ulyses (Seminis), Fiona and Jackal (Sluis and Groot), TOP 21 (Clause), Saria and Gemstar (Petoseed), Hilario, Rex, Tycoon and Tyking, (Royal Sluis), Pitenza-TY and Pal-TY (Enza-Zaden). In heavily affected areas, these hybrids need to be protected with insecticides during the first weeks after planting to produce acceptable yields. Many experimental lines are being developed which show good levels of resistance against TYLCV and other begomoviruses affecting tomato worldwide. The breeding line TY172 originating from S. peruvianum is a symptomless carrier of TYLCV whether infected in the greenhouse or in the field; at least three loci may account for the resistance (Friedmann et al., 1998). The breeding line 902 originating from S. habrochaites support little virus accumulation; another line derived from the same wild tomato progenitor, line 908, is tolerant to the virus. Tolerance is controlled by a dominant major locus, and resistance by two to three additive recessive loci (Vidavski and Czosnek, 1998). Nine hybrids based on these lines have been successfully tested in infested fields in Israel, Egypt, Morocco and Guatemala.
Marker-assisted breeding has allowed localization of TYLCV-resistance loci on the tomato genetic map and has been instrumental in developing new tomato varieties. Using polymorphic DNA markers, a TYLCV-tolerance gene originating from S. chilense LA1969, Ty-1, has been mapped to tomato chromosome 6, close to the nematode resistance Mi gene (Zamir et al., 1994). Another locus associated with tolerance originating from S. pimpinellifolium has been mapped to chromosome 6 but to a locus different from Ty-1 (Chague et al., 1997). Polymorphic markers have also been used to map a loci coinded Ty-2 conferring resistance to ToLCV, originating from S. habrochaites to tomato chromosome 11 (Hanson et al., 2000). A major partially dominant locus, termed Ty-3, was mapped to chromosome 6, near the Ty-1 locus (Ji et al., 2007). Another TYLCV resistance locus, termed Ty-4, was mapped on the long arm of Chromosome 3 (Ji et al., 2008). Another locus, termed Ty-5, was mapped to chromosome 4 using the breeding highly resistant line TY172, which originating from S. peruvianum (Anbinder et al., 2009). The different sources of resistance were piled up to provide tomato plants with better resistance to TYLCV (Vidavski et al., 2008). The genes conferring resistance have not yet been isolated. An RNAi-based genome-wide screening is under way to uncover the gene network sustaining TYLCV resistance in tomato lines issued from S. habrochaites (Czosnek et al., 2011b).
Genetic Engineering
1. Pathogen-derived resistance
Virus-resistant transgenics have been developed in many crops by introducing either viral capsid protein or replicase gene encoding sequences. This concept has been called pathogen-derived resistance (PDR) (Lomonossoff, 1995; Baulcombe, 1996). PDR has been the most common approach used to obtain resistance to TYLCV, including viral sequences that generate antisense RNA as well as the expression of full-length and truncated viral genes (Polston and Hiebert, 2007). The CP gene was one of the first TYLCV genes evaluated for the ability to generate pathogen-derived resistance. Tomato plants expressing the TYLCV CP showed a delay in symptoms, a recovery from infection, and resistance upon repeated inoculations (Kunik et al., 1994). Expression antisense RNA of the TYLCSV Rep gene provided a good level of resistance in Nicotiana benthamiana (Bendahmane and Gronenborn, 1997). The expression of sense and antisense constructs of truncated TYLCSV Rep in N. benthamiana also showed resistance (Noris et al., 1996). When a truncated TYLCV-Mld Rep gene was expressed in tomato, the transgenic plants were resistant to TYLCV-Mld, but were susceptible to TYLCV-IL (Antignus et al., 2004). A 2/5 TYLCV Rep gene construct conferred high levels of resistance and often immunity in both transformed N. tabacum and S. lycopersicum (Yang et al., 2004).
2. Virus gene silencing
Viruses trigger plant antiviral mechanisms leading to the degradation of viral RNA via the formation of dsRNA derived from viral sequences, initiating post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS). This phenomenom was named RNA-mediated gene silencing. Some viruses establish themselves by expressing silencing supressor genes, which interfere with plant host silencing mechanisms (Voinnet et al., 1999; Roth et al., 2004). RNA-mediated virus resistance proved to be more efficient than protein-mediated resistance but was highly-sequence dependent. Transgenic plants have been developed which exploited the mechanism of silencing via dsRNA (Smith et al., 2000). Using a transformation cassette consisting of the 3’-end of the Rep (sense and antisense orientation) as the arms of the hairpin, and a castor bean catalase as the intron, the treated tomato plants showed immunity to TYLCV upon whitefly-mediated inoculation (Fuentes et al., 2006). A similar approach was used with the 5’-end of the TYLCV CP gene and a maize ubiquitin intron, inducing resistance to TYLCV in tomato (Zrachya et al., 2007). The intron-hairpin approach was used to express multiple TYLCV sequences in tobacco and tomato plants (Abhary et al., 2006). The treated plants were symptomless and TYLCV DNA was not detected. In general, silencing was specific to the TYLCV strain; silencing using TYLCV sequences conferred resistance to TYLCV but not to other TYLCV species or strains, such as TYLCSV (Noris et al., 2004).
3. GroEL
This novel approach is based on the observation that GroEL produced by whitefly endosymbiotic bacteria binds to the CP of TYLCV in the insect hemolymph, thereby protecting the virion from destruction and ensuring transmission (Morin et al., 1999). TYLCV-GroEL binding has been exploited to generate TYLCV resistant tomato plants. Tomatoes transformed with GroEL under a phloem-specific promoter showed milder to no symptoms in plants in the R0 through R2 generation. GroEL/TYLCV complexes were readily detected in resistant plants. It was hypothesized that GroEL/TYLCV complexes formed in transformed plants and that these complexes were interfering in virus movement (Akad et al., 2007).
References
Top of pageAbhary M, Patil BL, Fauquet CM, 2007. Molecular biodiversity, taxonomy and nomenclature of tomato yellow leaf curl-like viruses. In: The Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus Disease: Management, Molecular Biology, Breeding for Resistance [ed. by Czosnek, H.]. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 85-121.
Alvarez PA, Abud-Ant·n AJ, 1995. Reporte de Rep·blica Dominicana. Honduras: CEIBA, 36:39-47.
Antignus EY, Cohen S, 1994. Cloning of tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) and the complete nucleotide sequence of a mild infectious clone. Phytopathology, 84:707-712.
Atzmon G, van Hoss H, Czosnek H, 1998. PCR-amplification of tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) from squashes of plants and insect vectors: application to the study of TYLCV acquisition and transmission. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 104:189-194.
Azam KM, Razvi SA, Al-Muhthuri MH, Al-Raeesi AA, 1997. Distribution pattern of sweet potato whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Gennadius) on tomato plants. Sultan Qaboos University Journal for Scientific Research - Agricultural Sciences, 2:43-50; 16 ref.
Bananej K, Kheyr-Pour A, Ahoonmanesh A, Gronenborn B, 1998. DNA sequence of TYLCV from Iran. GenBank accession AJ132711.
Brown JK, 2010. Phylogenetic biology of the Bemisia tabaci sibling species group. In: Bemisia, Bionomics and Management of a Global Pest [ed. by Stansly, P. A. \Naranjo, S. E.]. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York, Netherlands, Germany, UK, USA: Springer, 31-67.
Caciagli P, 2007. Survival of whiteflies during long-distance transportation of agricultural products and plants. In: The Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus Disease: Management, Molecular Biology, Breeding for Resistance [ed. by Czosnek, H.]. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 57-63.
Caciagli P, Bosco D, 1996. Quantitative determination of tomato yellow leaf curl geminivirus DNA by chemiluminescent assay using digoxygenin-labeled probes. Journal of Virological Methods, 57:19-29.
Calixto M, Vazques LL, Mateo A, 1995. Reporte de Cuba. Honduras: CEIBA, 36:7-8.
Castle SJ, Palumbo JC, Prabhaker N, Horowitz R, Delholm I, 2010. Ecological determinants of Bemisia tabaci resistance to insecticides. In: Bemisia: Biomics and Management of a Global Pest [ed. by Stansly, P. A. \Naranjo, S. E.]. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York, The Netherlands, Germany, UK, USA: Springer, 423-465.
Chiemsombat P, Attathom S, Kositratana W, Sutabutra T, Sae-Ung N, 1992. Cloning of PCR-amplified coat protein gene of tomato yellow leaf curl virus. Kasetsart Journal (Natural Science Supplement), 26:1-5.
Chiemsombat P, Ikegami M, Attathom S, 1991. Serological relationship between tomato yellow leaf curl virus, mungbean yellow mosaic virus and tobacco leaf curl virus. Kasetsart Journal (Nat.Sci.Suppl.), 25:45-47.
Cohen S, 1990. Epidemiology of whitefly-transmitted viruses. In Gerling D, ed. Whiteflies: Their Bionomics, Pest status and Management. Andover, UK: Intercept Ltd., 211-225.
Cohen S, Harpaz I, 1964. Periodic, rather than continual acquisition of a new tomato virus by its vector, the tobacco whitefly (Bemisia tabaci Gennadius). Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 7:155-166.
Cohen S, Nitzany FE, 1966. Transmission and host range of the tomato leaf curl virus. Phytopathology, 56:1127-1131.
Credi R, Betti L, Canova A, 1989. Association of a geminivirus with a severe disease of tomato in Sicily. Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 28:223-226.
Culotta E, 1991. "Superbug" attacks California crops. Science, 254:1445.
Czosnek H, 2007. Interactions of Tomato yellow leaf curl virus with its insect vector. In: The Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus Disease: Management, Molecular Biology, Breeding for Resistance [ed. by Czosnek, H.]. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 157-170.
Czosnek H, 2007. Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus Disease: Management, molecular biology, breeding for resistance. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 420 pp.
Czosnek H, 2008. Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (geminiviridae). In: Encyclopedia of Virology. Third Edition [ed. by Mahy, B. W. J. \Regenmortel, M. H. V. van]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier, 138-145.
Czosnek H, 2010. Management of Tomato yellow leaf curl disease; a case study for emerging geminiviral diseases. In: Emerging Geminiviral Diseases and their Management [ed. by Sharma, P. \Gaur, R. K. \Ikegami, M.]. New York, USA: Nova Science Publishers Inc., 37-57.
Czosnek H, Ghanim M, Rubinstein G, Morin S, Fridman V, Zeidan M, 2001. Whiteflies: vectors - or victims ? - of geminiviruses. In: Maramorosch K, ed. Advances in Virus research, Academic Press, 57:291-322.
Czosnek H, Sade D, Gorovits R, Vidavski F, Beeri H, Sobol I, Eybishtz E, 2011. A RNAi-based genome-wide screen to discover genes involved in resistance to Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) in tomato. In: RNAi Technology [ed. by Gaur, R. K. \Gafni, Y. \Sharma, P. \Gupta, V. K.]. New York, USA: Nova Science Publishers Inc., 155-176.
Dalmon A, Cailly M, David C, 2000. Comparison of serological and molecular techniques for detection of Tomato yellow leaf curl begomovirus. EPPO Conference on diagnostic techniques for plant pests, Waddington, The Netherlands, February 2000.
Delatte H, Lett J-M, Lefeuvre P, Reynaud B, Peterschmitt M, 2007. An insular environment before and after TYLCV introduction. In: The Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus Disease: Management, Molecular Biology, Breeding for Resistance [ed. by Czosnek, H.]. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 13-23.
EFSA Panel on Plant Health, 2013. Scientific Opinion on the risks to plant health posed by Bemisia tabaci species complex and viruses it transmits for the EU territory. EFSA Journal, 11(4). 3162. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_output/files/main_documents/3162.pdf
EPPO, 2014. PQR database. Paris, France: European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization. http://www.eppo.int/DATABASES/pqr/pqr.htm
European Whitefly Study Network Newsletter, 2001. Evaluating AGRI-50 against Bemisia tabaci in the Souss Valley of Morocco - a new non-toxic pesticide. Issue N0. 11, September 2001.
Frohlich D, Torres-Jerez I, Bedford ID, Markham PG, Brown JK, 1999. A phylogenetic analysis of the Bemisia tabaci species complex based on mitochondrial DNA markers. Molecular Ecology, 8:1593-1602.
Gerling D, 1990. Natural enemies of whiteflies: predators and parasitoids. In: Gerling D, ed. Whiteflies: Their Bionomics, Pest Status and Management. UK: Intercept Ltd., 147-185.
Gilbertson RL, Rojas MR, Kon T, Jaquez J, 2007. Introduction of Tomato yellow leaf curl virus into the Dominican Republic: the development of a successful integrated pest management strategy. In: The Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus Disease: Management, Molecular Biology, Breeding for Resistance [ed. by Czosnek, H.]. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 283-307.
Hibi T, Saito Y, 1985. A dot immunobinding assy for the detection of tobacco mosaic virus in infected tissues. Journal of General Virology, 66:1191-1194.
Jeske H, 2007. Replication of geminiviruses and the use of rolling circle amplification for their diagnosis. In: The Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus Disease: Management, Molecular Biology, Breeding for Resistance [ed. by Czosnek, H.]. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 145-160.
Ji Y, Scott JW, Maxwell DP, Schuster DJ, 2008. Ty-4, a tomato yellow leaf curl virus resistance gene on chromosome 3 of tomato. Tomato Genetic Cooperative Reports, 58:29-31.
Kahan RP, 1982. The host as a vector: Exclusion as a control. In: Pathogens, vectors, and plant diseases: Approaches to control [ed. by Harris, K. F. \Maramorosch, K.]. New York, USA: Academic Press Inc., 123-149.
Kahan RP, 1982. The host as a vector: Exclusion as a control. In: Pathogens, vectors, and plant diseases: Approaches to control [ed. by Harris, K. F. \Maramorosch, K.]. New York, USA: Academic Press, 123-149.
Kerkadi M, Belkhoda F, Ait Ouada M, 1998. Identification test of Tomato yellow leaf curl virus on tomato and green pepper in Algeria. Abstract, International Symposium on Crop Protection, Gent, Belgium, May 1998, p. 96.
Lee H, Song W, Kwak HR, Kim JD, Park J, Auh CK, Kim DH, Lee KY, Lee S, Choi HS, 2010. Phylogenetic analysis and inflow route of Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) and Bemisia tabaci in Korea. Molecules and Cells, 30:467-476.
Lepoivre P, 2001. Editorial: Les systemes de production agricole et la protection des cultures a la croisTe des chemins. Biotechnologie, Agronomie, SociTtT et Environnement, 5:195-199.
Mazyad HM, Nakhla MK, El-Amrety AA, Dos SA, 1986. Further studies on the epidemiology of tomato yellow leaf curl virus in Egypt. Egypt Acta Horticulturae, 190:121-130.
Milne RG, Luisoni E, 1977. Rapid immune electron microscopy of virus preparation. Methods in Virology, 6:265-281.
Morris J, 1997. A Multiplex PCR method for the simultaneous detection of Tomato yellow leaf curl and Tomato mottle geminiviruses. British Society for Plant Pathology Presidential Meeting. Plant Pathology - Global Perspectives of an Applied Science. Offered Posters.
Nakhla MK, Maxwell DP, 1998. Epidemiology and management of tomato yellow leaf curl disease. In: Hadidi A, Khetarpal RK, Koganezawa H, eds. Plant Virus Disease Control. St Paul, USA: APS Press, 565-583.
Navas-Castillo J, Sanchez-Campos S, Diaz JA, 1999. Tomato yellow leaf curl virus causes a novel disease of common bean and severe epidemics in tomato in Spain. Plant Disease, 83:29-32.
Navot N, Pichersky E, Zeiden M, Zamir D, Czosnek H, 1991. Tomato yellow leaf curl virus: A whitefly-transmitted geminivirus with a single genomic component. Virology, 185:151-161.
Padidam M, Beachy RN, Fauquet CM, 1995. Classification and identification of geminiviruses using sequence comparisons. Journal of General Virology, 76:249-263.
Pilowski M, Cohen S, 1990. Tolerance to tomato yellow leaf curl virus derived from Lycopersicon esculentum. Plant Disease, 74:248-250.
Polston JE, 1998. Tomato yellow leaf curl virus-USA (Florida). World Wide Web Page at http://www.agnic.org/pmp/1998/tyl0515.html.
Polston JE, Hiebert E, 2007. Transgenic approaches for the control of Tomato yellow leaf curl virus. In: The Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus Disease: Management, Molecular Biology, Breeding for Resistance [ed. by Czosnek, H.]. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 373-390.
Polston JE, McGovern RJ, Sherwood T, Kelly R, 1999. New developments in tomato yellow leaf curl virus in Florida. In: 1999 Proceedings of the Florida Tomato Institute, Naples, FL, USA, PRO-516. Gainesville, FL, USA: University of Florida, IFAS, 2-5.
Polston JE, Sherwood T, Rosell R, Nava A, 2001. Detection of tomato yellow leaf curl and tomato mottle virus in developmental stages of the whitefly vector, Bemisia tabaci. Third International Geminivirus Symposium, John Innes Centre, Abtract 81.
Polston JE, Yang Y, Sherwood T, Bucher C, Freitas-Astua, Hiebert E, 2001. Effective resistance to tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) in tomato and tobacco mediated by a truncated TYLCV Rep gene. Third International Geminivirus Symposium, John Innes Centre, Abstract 82.
Poolpol P, 1986. Dot immunobinding assay for tropical plant viruses. In: Kustak E, ed. Proceeding of the First International Conference on the Impact of Viral diseases on the Development of Asian Countries, December 7-13, 1986. Bangkok, Thailand, 214.
Qui±ones M, Fonseca D, Martinez Y, Accotto G-P, 2002. First Report of Tomato yellow leaf curl virus infecting pepper plants in Cuba. Plant Disease, 86:73.
Rapisarda C, 1990. Bemisia tabaci vector of TYLCV in Sicily. Informatore Fitopatologico, 40(6):27-31
Rubinstein G, Morin S, Czosnek H, 1999. Long-term effect of imidacloprid on mortality of the whitefly Bemisia tabaci caged with treated eggplant and tomato, and on transmission of tomato yellow leaf curl geminivirus (TYLCV) to tomato. Journal of Economical Entomology, 92:658-662.
Schuster DJ, Stansly PA, Polston JE, Gilreath PR, McAvoy E, 2007. Management of whiteflies, whitefly-vectored plant virus, and insecticide resistance for vegetable production in Southern Florida. ENY-735 (IN695), a publication of the Entomology and Nematology Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Florida, USA: University of Florida.
Stansly PA, Naranjo SE, 2010. Bemisia, Bionomics and Management of a Global Pest. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London, New York, The Netherlands, Germany, UK, USA: Springer.
Taylor B, Powell A, 1982. Isolation of plant RNA and DNA. Bethesda Research Laboratories (BRL) Focus, 4:4-6.
Tesoriero L, Azzopardi S, 2006. Tomato yellow leaf curl virus in Australia. Primefact, 220:1-2.
Thanapase V, Poolpol P, Sutabutra T, Attathom S, 1983. Causal agent and some important characteristics of tomato yellow leaf curl disease. Kasetsart Journal, 17:65-73.
Thomas JE, Massalski PR, Harrison BD, 1986. Production of monoclonal antibodies to African cassava mosaic virus and differences in their reactivities with other whitefly-transmitted geminiviruses. Journal of General Virology, 67:2739-2748.
Thongrit D, Attathom S, Sutabutra T, 1986. Tomato yellow leaf curl virus in Thailand. In: Plant Virus Diseases of Horticultural Crops in the Tropics and Subtropics. FFTC Book Series No.33. Taipei, Taiwan, 60-63.
Valverde RA, Lotrakul P, Landry AD, Boudreaux JE, 2001. First report of tomato yellow leaf curl virus in Louisiana. Plant Disease, 85(2):230; 2 ref.
Wernecke MA, Roye ME, McLaughlin WA, Nakhla MK, Maxwell DP, 1997. Identification of tomato yellow leaf curl geminivirus (TYLCV-Is) in tomatoes and peppers in Jamaica. GenBank accessions U84146, U84147, U84397, U85782.xxx.
Xu Y, Cai X, Zhou X, 2007. Tomato leaf curl Guangxi virus is a distinct monopartite begomovirus species. European Journal of Plant Pathology, 118:287-294.
Yassin AM, Nour MA, 1965. Tomato leaf curl diseases in the Sudan and their relation to tobacco leaf curl. Annals of Applied Biology, 56:207-217.
Yin QY, Yang HY, Gong QH, Wang HY, Liu YL, Hong YG, Tien P, 2001. Tomato yellow leaf curl China virus: monopartite genome organization and agroinfection of plants. Virus Research, 81:69-76.
Yongping Z, Weimin Z, Huimei C, Yang Q, Kun S, Yanhui W, Longying Z, Zhang YL, 2008. Molecular identification and the complete nucleotide sequence of TYLCV isolate from Shanghai of China. Virus Genes, 36:547-551.
Distribution References
CABI, Undated. Compendium record. Wallingford, UK: CABI
CABI, Undated a. CABI Compendium: Status as determined by CABI editor. Wallingford, UK: CABI
Credi R, Betti L, Canova A, 1989. Association of a geminivirus with a severe disease of tomato in Sicily. In: Phytopathologia Mediterranea, 28 223-226.
Lepoivre P, 2001. (Editorial: Les systemes de production agricole et la protection des cultures a la croisTe des chemins). In: Biotechnologie, Agronomie, SociTtT et Environnement, 5 195-199.
Morris J, 1997. A Multiplex PCR method for the simultaneous detection of Tomato yellow leaf curl and Tomato mottle geminiviruses. In: British Society for Plant Pathology Presidential Meeting. Plant Pathology - Global Perspectives of an Applied Science,
NPPO of the Netherlands, 2013. Pest status of harmful organisms in the Netherlands., Wageningen, Netherlands:
Polston JE, 1998. Tomato yellow leaf curl virus-USA (Florida)., http://www.agnic.org/pmp/1998/tyl0515.html
Thongrit D, Attathom S, Sutabutra T, 1986. Tomato yellow leaf curl virus in Thailand. In: Plant Virus Diseases of Horticultural Crops in the Tropics and Subtropics, 33 Taipei, Taiwan: 60-63.
Links to Websites
Top of pageWebsite | URL | Comment |
---|---|---|
Geminiviruses and TYLCV | http://www.plantpath.wisc.edu/GeminivirusResistantTomatoes/MERC/TYLCV/TYLCV.html | |
Tomato yellow leaf curl | http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/PD-70.pdf | |
Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) | http://www.avrdc.org/pdf/tomato/TYLCV.pdf | |
Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) - in Spanish | http://www.icia.es/moscablanca/images/stories/fichas/Virus/TYLCV.pdf | |
Tomato yellow leaf curl virus disease (TYLCV) | http://www.infonet-biovision.org/print/ct/88/pests |
Organizations
Top of pageIsrael: Agricultural Research Organization, Bet Dagen, www.volcani.gov.il
Israel: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot, www.agri.huji.ac.il
Taiwan: Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center, Tainan, www.avrdc.org
Spain: Instituto de Hortofruticultura Subtropical y Meditarránea, Malaga, www.eelm.csic.es
USA: University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, www.arizona.edu
USA: University of California at Davis, Davis, California, www.ucdavis.edu
USA: University of Florida - Gainesville, Gainesville, Florida, www.ufl.edu
Contributors
Top of page01/01/12 Review by:
Henryk Czosnek, The Haim Gvati Professor of Agriculture, Institute of Plant Sciences and Genetics in Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot 76100, Israel.
Distribution Maps
Top of pageSelect a dataset
Map Legends
-
CABI Summary Records
Map Filters
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/