Plant Protect. Sci., 2003, 39(1):1-6 | DOI: 10.17221/3819-PPS

Evaluation of American peach cultivars for resistance to Plum pox virus

Jaroslav Polák, Jitka Pívalová, William Dowler, R. Walker Miller
1 Division of Plant Medicine, Department of Virology, Research Institute of Crop Production, Prague-Ruzyně, Czech Republic
2 Department of Plant Pathology and Physiology, Clemson University, Clemson, USA

Twenty-eight American peach cultivars were screened for their reaction to Plum pox virus (PPV). The cultivars were evaluated for the presence and intensity of PPV symptoms in leaves and fruits, and the relative concentration of PPV protein in flowers was determined by ELISA. The results allowed to divide the cultivars into four groups: cultivars Flame Prince, Cotender, Newhaven, Ruby Prince, Sun Prince, Jefferson, Camden and Jersey Queen were characterised as medium resistant to PPV; cultivars Loring, Blaze Prince, June Prince and Legend were classified as tolerant; cultivars Quachita Gold, O'Henry, Crest Haven, Biscos, Sentry, Fire Prince, Carogem, Carolina Belle, Redglobe and Harvester were rated as medium susceptible; and cultivars Bounty, Summer Prince, Gold Prince, Redhaven, Gala and Sunbrite were characterised as highly susceptible to PPV.

Keywords: Plum pox virus; peach; disease symptoms; virus concentration; ELISA; resistance

Published: March 31, 2003  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Polák J, Pívalová J, Dowler W, Miller RW. Evaluation of American peach cultivars for resistance to Plum pox virus. Plant Protect. Sci. 2003;39(1):1-6. doi: 10.17221/3819-PPS.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. A L. (199) : The detection of plum pox virus by ELISA in tissues of peaches during vegetation period. Zahradnictví, 17: 251-262. to plum pox virus. Acta Hortic., 386: 299-305.
    2. D F., L M., P G., T B., P J.P., M M. (1986): Plum pox virus detection by ELISA technique in peach and apricot infected trees at different growing stages. Acta Hortic., 193: 187-191. Go to original source...
    3. M A.C., S G.D. (1992): Evaluation of peach and nectarine varieties according to resistance to sharka (plum pox) virus. Acta Hortic., 309: 221-227. Go to original source...
    4. O I., K B., P J. (1996): Investigations into possible sources of resistance for breeding of peaches resistant to plum pox virus. Zahradnictví - Hort. Sci. (Prague), 23: 81-83.
    5. P J. (1989): Diagnosis of plum pox virus in infected symptomless trees of apricot, peach and Prunus cerasifera ssp. myrobalana by ELISA and ISEM. Acta Hortic., 235: 299-303. Go to original source...
    6. P J. (1995): Reliability of detection and relative concentration of plum pox virus determinated by ELISA in an infected peach tree during the vegetation period. Z. Pfl.-Krankh. Pfl.-Schutz, 102: 16-22.
    7. P J. (1996): The correlation between leaf symptoms and concentration of plum pox virus in peach cultivars. Ochr. Rostl., 32: 1-8.
    8. P J. (1998): Symptomatological and serological evaluation of peach cultivars for resistance to plum pox virus. Acta Hortic., 472: 433-439. Go to original source...
    9. P J. (1999): Further serological evaluation of peach and nectarine cultivars for resistance to Plum pox virus. Protectia Plantelor, 36: 15-20.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content