Somatic Embryogenesis: A Tool for Fast and Reliable Virus and Viroid Elimination for Grapevine and other Plant Species
by
, and
Robert Olah
*, 
Mihaly Turcsan
,
Krisztina Olah
,
Eszter Farkas
,
Tamas Deak
,
Gizella Jahnke
and
Diana Agnes Nyitraine Sardy
Institute for Viticulture and Oenology, Buda Campus, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Villányi Str. 29-43, H-1118 Budapest, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2022, 8(6), 508; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8060508
Submission received: 2 May 2022
/
Revised: 5 June 2022
/
Accepted: 6 June 2022
/
Published: 8 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Viticulture)
Abstract
:Somatic embryogenesis (SE) is a widely used technique in plant biotechnology, and it can be a possible tool for virus and viroid elimination. This review highlights the advantages and limitations of production of pathogen-free plants using somatic embryogenesis. Beside the well-known meristem cultures, chemotherapy, thermotherapy and cryotherapy, SE is a very effective virus and viroid elimination method. Production of virus- and viroid-free plants is categorized based on the latest virus taxonomy. The available information on virus and viroid spread in calli and the effect of SE on morphological and genetic stability of the regenerated plants are presented in details. A number of factors which could affect the efficiency of this technique are also pointed out. Based on the collected and analysed data, SE can be a useful option for virus and viroid elimination.
1. Introduction
The backbone of economical crop production is high-quality propagating material. However, climate change and ongoing globalization are driving crucial changes on crop diseases including viruses through the spread of the host plants and vectors, the intraspecific and interspecific competition, and the latitudinal movements of the pathogens. These changes may affect the occurrence of different viral entities in plantations and in wild plant populations [1]. Climate change has also a strong influence on food security, but the resilience of agro-ecosystems can be increased by appropriate variety utilization [2].
In case of vegetatively propagated plants, suitable plant protection techniques are not available against viruses and viroids, thus different tissue culture-based methods including somatic embryogenesis (SE) are used for the sanitation of candidate materials. The different stages of plant breeding (crossbreeding, clonal selection etc.) require virus- and viroid-free propagation material, but using only one type of the tissue culture-based elimination treatments results in a good chance of failing, due to the significant differences in the genetic background of diverse genotypes or the metabolism modifying effects of mixed infections in the mother plants. Thus, these conditions are able to alter the effectiveness of methods based on tissue culture, such as meristem and shoot tip cultures, thermotherapy, chemotherapy, or cryotherapy [3,4,5].
The phenomenon of somatic embryogenesis (SE) was described at the end of 1950s [6], and became a widely used technique in plant biotechnology for different purposes [7,8], such as the controlled alteration of genetic background, fast propagation or isolation of different mutations, but as well as an effective method for virus and viroid elimination used mainly in the case of vegetatively propagated plants. This tissue culture method has been mostly successfully applied on avocado (Persea americana, Lauraceae), black pepper (Piper nigrum, Piperaceae), cassava (Manihot esculenta, Euphorbiaceae), different citrus species (Citrus spp., Rutaceae), cocoa (Theobroma cacao, Malvaceae), garlic (Allium sativum, Amaryllidaceae), grapevine (Vitis spp., Vitaceae), and sugarcane (Saccharum spp., Poaceae) to eliminate 31 different viral entities causing serious diseases (Table 1).
Up until now numerous experiments have been presented by different laboratories. In this work we review the main results, advantages and disadvantages of this virus elimination method to support the varietal exchange adopting to climate change. In the case of grapevine, the published information is based partially on our unpublished data.
The greatest advantage of SE is its outstanding efficiency and reliability in production of virus-free plants. However, the genotype dependence of this method and the likely higher rate of possible mutations may be a limiting factor in some cases.
2. Detection of Viruses and Viroids in Embryogenic Callus and Somatic Embryos
Limited data are available about the transmission of viral entities in callus and embryo cultures; however, the different factors (age of calli, culture maintenance time, secondary embryogenesis etc.) that affect the spread of the viruses and viroids during SE are crucial to the effectiveness of eradication.
2.1. DNA Viruses
Secondary embryogenesis was more effective for virus elimination (91–96%) than primary SE (81–85%), when somatic embryos were derived from cocoa swollen shoot virus (CSSV) infected cocoa trees [27], and CSSV infected embryos occurred more frequently if SE was induced from older callus cultures [28]. In other experiments, PCR-based CSSV detection showed 30–60% and 40–50% infection in the induced calluses and primary embryos, respectively. However, only 0–19% of secondary cocoa embryos were PCR-positive, depending on the plant genotype, while CSSV could not be detected in regenerated plantlets [29]. Similarly, subculturing cyclic somatic embryos improved the effectiveness of elimination in the case of piper yellow mottle virus (PYMoV) [30]. In cassava, 87.5% of somatic embryos proved to be African cassava mosaic virus- (ACMV) and East African cassava mosaic virus-(EACMV) free, and elimination efficiency was probably reduced when longer regeneration periods were observed or older calli were used [31]. The average effectiveness of secondary somatic embryogenesis was higher (93.9%) than primary somatic embryogenesis (87.6%) [32]. Based on these results, it is also feasible that the development of somatic embryos from healthy cells is more frequent; as such secondary or cyclic embryogenesis probably increases the ratio of regenerated virus-free embryos.
2.2. Positive Sense RNA Viruses
2.2.1. Closteroviridae
Gambino and coworkers [33] observed that embryogenic callus lines after six-month propagation were free from grapevine leafroll-associated virus-1 (GLRaV-1). In this observation, four-month-old ovary-derived calli were found to be infected by grapevine leafroll-associated virus-3 (GLRaV-3), while eight-month-old calli proved to be virus-free. Anther-derived calli showed lower levels of GLRaV-3 infection after four months [34], and GLRaV-3 was not present in somatic embryos regenerated from calli which also contained infected and healthy cells [33]. In contrast, the translocation of GLRaV-s was observed after around 15 repeated transfers of grapevine callus tissue, but viruses were not detectable beyond that [35]. The reason for the lower level of GLRaV-3 infection in anther derived callus is unknown, since both anthers and ovaries were virus infected. According to the authors, the larger size of the ovaries may lay in the background [34].
2.2.2. Betaflexiviridae
Embryogenic callus lines after six-month propagation were free from grapevine virus A (GVA), and GVA was not present in somatic embryos regenerated from calli containing infected and healthy cells [33]. Four-month-old ovary derived calli were infected by grapevine rupestris stem pitting-associated virus (GRSPaV), while eight-month-old calli were proved to be virus-free. Similarly to GLRaV, anther derived calli showed lower amount of GRSPaV after four months [34]. Long term callus cultures proved to be effective for virus elimination, especially for phloem limited viruses, whose movement may be inhibited or slow in the callus. The required culturing time may depend on the virus species and the proliferation ratio of the callus.
2.2.3. Tymoviridae
In the case of phloem limited grapevine fleck virus (GFkV) only a part of the embryogenic calli contained virus particles and there was a fluctuation in ELISA measurements during the propagation. Interestingly the abnormal embryos were GFkV infected, and their conversion to plants was inhibited. Direct embryogenesis was more effective than indirect embryogenesis for GFkV elimination [36]. For the strictly phloem-limited GFKV, the indirect SE seems to be a good strategy for virus elimination due to the lack of vascular tissues in the embryogenic cell mass. The higher efficiency of direct embryogenesis may be justified by the fact that only healthy cells formed embryos, and the very fast regeneration process limited the probability of GFKV spreading.
2.2.4. Secoviridae
For grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV), the tested embryos and plantlets were GFLV-positive when SE was applied without heat therapy [37]. This indicates that GFLV was able to spread from cell to cell in the tissue culture. In this experiment, GFLV transmission to embryos was highly effective at room temperature despite the application of indirect embryogenesis, which may be explained by the negative effect of the age of embryogenic cultures. More time (90 days) was needed from the callus stage to somatic embryo germination at room temperature, while the time requirement was 20 days shorter in the case of the heat treatment. Gambino and colleagues [33] found that embryogenic callus lines after six-month maintenance were free from GFLV. In their experiments, only one GFLV infected plant was regenerated from 70 embryos, and most of the GFLV-positive abnormal embryos could not develop into plantlets [33].
2.3. Negative Sense RNA Viruses
In the case of citrus psorosis ophiovirus (CPsV) [38] all produced embryogenic callus lines proved to be infected.
2.4. Viroids
The persistent presence of avocado sunblotch viroid (ASBVd) was detected by RT-PCR in embryogenic cultures, somatic embryos, and regenerated plants in avocado, and high a sequence variability of this viroid was identified in the regenerated plants, which may suggest that in vitro conditions can stimulate the formation of sequence variants [39]. Despite indirect embryogenesis, all of the regenerated embryos proved to be infected; based on this, the virus titre in nucellar tissues may have been high, and the application of liquid cultures probably stimulated the spread and genetic variability of this viroid.
Hop stunt viroid (HSVd) and grapevine yellow speckle viroid (GYSVd) were also detected in embryogenic and non-embryogenic calli, but regenerated embryos and plants were free from them [40]. Based on this, it is more difficult for HSVd- and GYSVd- infected cells to develop into embryos, similar to some viruses. No viroids (citrus dwarfing viroid—CDVd, citrus exocortis viroid—CEVd and HSVd) were detected by RT-PCR in the greenhouse which maintained regenerated Citrus plants 6 months after grafting. However, 18 months after grafting, one of the three viroids was detected in 3–24.2% of tested plants [41], showing a presumably rising concentration of viroids in some older plants with more developed vascular systems.
3. Healthy Plant Production: Viruses and Viroids in SE Based Elimination Experiments
Until now elimination efficiency of SE for 25 virus species had been tested in different experiments representing 10 families of Monodnaviria and Riboviria (Figure 1), and 6 species representing two families of viroids (Figure 2).
These species show high diversity in nucleic acid structures with single- (Geminiviridae) or double-stranded DNA (Caulimoviridae), and with positive-sense (Betaflexiviridae, Bromoviridae, Closteroviridae, Luteoviridae, Potyviridae, Secoviridae, Tymoviridae), negative-sense (Aspiviridae), or non-coding single-stranded RNA genomes (Avsunviroidae, Pospiviroidae). These viruses and viroids are responsible along with others, for the cassava mosaic, citrus psorosis, cocoa swollenshoot, garlic mosaic, grapevine infectious degeneration, piper yellow mottle, and sugarcane yellow leaf diseases (Table 1). The majority of viruses examined in SE experiments cause serious symptoms reducing crop yield, but some of them have no known or major effect on crop quality and/or quantity.
3.1. DNA Viruses Tested in SE Experiments
ACMV and EACMV represent Geminiviridae with single-stranded DNA genomes. CSSV and PYMoV belong to Caulimovirdae, containing double-stranded DNA. In Geminiviridae, the effectiveness of SE was 100% if immature leaf lobes were used as starting material [42], but in the case of nodal cuttings, the elimination rate was lower: 66–100%, depending on the genotype [32]. In Caulimoviridae, CSSV elimination was 100% with different cocoa genotypes, but in the case of piper the efficiency (55–100%) proved to be genotype dependent (Table 2).
3.2. Positive Sense RNA Viruses
In Betaflexiviridae, the elimination ratio of different viruses was 100% or almost 100%, with the exceptions of the carlavirus garlic common latent virus (GCLV, 0–50%) and the foveavirus GRSPaV. In our experiments (Table 2) GRSPaV eradication proved to depend on genotype and SE effectivity, but for 20 different genotypes published in different papers or tested in our laboratory, this method showed full efficiency, and only in the case of three cultivars was lower efficacy experienced (54–88%). If elimination methods other than SE were applied, GRSPaV proved to be one of the most recalcitrant viruses regarding sanitation [22]. The virus elimination with SE in Bromoviridae (100%), Closteroviridae (90–100%), Luteoviridae (100%), and Tymoviridae (100%) is coherent and highly reliable. However, there are other groups such as Potyviridae (0–62.5%) or Secoviridae (0–100%), where different results are reported regarding elimination efficiency. Nepoviruses (Secoviridae) are not phloem limited; therefore it is not surprising that, in the case of GFLV very different elimination rates were observed [23,25,47]. Interestingly, only one publication was found on the elimination of arabis mosaic virus (ArMV) from grapes with 100% efficiency using direct and indirect SE [43], although ArMV can cause serious economic damage. The regeneration pathway (the ratio of direct or indirect SE) for the acclimatised 46 lines was not clearly published, but the regenerated plants were negative for ARMV tested 1, 4 and 32 months after acclimatisation by DAS–ELISA and immunocapture RT-PCR.
3.3. Negative Sense RNA Viruses
Only one negative sense RNA virus, CPsV was attempted to be removed by SE, and CPsV was successfully eliminated from Citrus lemon, C. reticulata and C. sinensis via SE [38,41,44]. We have not found other published results with negative sense RNA viruses. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of CPsV elimination was 100% in these experiments.
3.4. Viroids
The elimination of ASBVd representing Avsunviroidae from avocado failed, where the nucellus of immature avocado seeds was used for SE induction. In the case of Apscaviroids, the effectiveness of SE was 64–100% for CDVd and 8.3–100% for GYSVd-1. Citrus bark-cracking viroid (CBCVd) belonging to Cocaviroids and CEVd representing Pospiviroids were completely or almost completely removed by SE. In the case of hop stunt viroid (Hostuviroid), the eradication efficacy of SE was between 60% and 100% in Citrus sp., and 0–100% in Vitis sp. One reason explaining the lower elimination rates may be the rapid reproduction and transmission of viroids from cell to cell [25]. Based on these results viroid elimination with SE seems to be an appropriate but less reliable method for Hostuviroids, and based on the very limited data, ineffective for Avsunviroids (Table 3).
4. Genotype Effect
In the case of the different garlic ecotypes the elimination efficiencies were between 13 and 63%, which shows a strong genotype effect in SE-based elimination [46]. In cassava, the age of the callus tissues and long regeneration period probably reduced the efficiency for the ‘Ankrah’ cultivar [31]. This phenomenon may be related to the different regeneration capacity and rapidity of the cassava genotypes used under the same culture conditions. The effectiveness of SE proved to be higher in the case of CPsV-free mother plants than in infected ones [38], from which it follows that genotype and the infections act together on the regeneration process. The experienced differences in the effectiveness of elimination of CDVd, CEVd, GLRaV-3, EACMV, GCLV, HSVd and GYSVd-1 on the different cultivars may be caused by similar factors [23,25,32,41,46,48].
5. Genetic Variability of the Regenerated Plants
Varietal and sometimes even clonal identities of vine- and fruit-propagating material are also of great economic importance. However, the propagation of embryogenic callus cultures in the SE has often been associated with an increased risk of genetic instability in the regenerated plants [57].
During the plant breeding process, the judgment of the genetic fidelity of the SE-derived plants to the mother plants could be different. SE could be even a possible way to gain greater somatic variability and, as such, could be a way to establish the starting material for clonal selection. This depends on the initial cells and tissues, as well as the type of SE applied by the breeders.
If SE is used at the end of the breeding process or exclusively for sanitation, then the genetic stability is more important. These genetic alterations can be verified by DNA (mostly SSR) markers, although the resolution of microsatellites is limited compared to the level of genetic polymorphism expected in SE. This type of variety identification is possible for most grape varieties, grape rootstocks and fruit varieties and rootstocks [23,58], but is not available for clones.
In grapevine Bouamama-Gzara and colleagues [52] found that 8% of the regenerated plants showed a phenotypic difference compared to the mother plants using direct embryogenesis from stamens [52]. Plant fidelity (from anthers) morphologically appeared to be true to type and flow cytometry was used to confirm the diploid level of the anther-derived plants [43]. Using immature cut seeds of grapevine for SE, around 10% of the regenerated plants were both virus-free and true to type [23].
In the case of lemon regenerants, ISSR analyses did not find any deviation from the mother plants, but in 50% of the tested Citrus sinensis ‘Washington navel 251′ plants, genetic polymorphism was identified [41]. A total of 25–35.5% genetic difference was detected by RAPD analysis after indirect SE on stigma-derived plantlets of ‘Washington navel 251′ orange depending on the primer [44]. Ovule cell cultures of different Citrus cultivars were genetically variable, and, due to this, the obtained virus-free somatic embryos from them were used for breeding purposes [45]. Nucellar embryony was also applied to produce pathogen-free plants of clementine varieties, nevertheless phenotypic differences between the regenerated and the original seed source plants were observed [59]. After indirect embryogenesis juvenile character (thorns) appeared on the stems in the first year on the regenerated Citrus plants [38,55].
Embryogenic cell cultures have been developed for important crops, but their application for propagation is very rare for commercial purposes, with the exception of coffee. In the case of coffee, 1% of the SE-derived plants showed somaclonal variation in field experiments [57]. These results suggest that genetic variability of regenerants depends on the species and the type of the inoculum used for SE. The genetic polymorphism appears to be higher if different parts of immature seeds are isolated for SE induction.
6. Embryogenesis Combined with other Treatments
We found a limited number of studies on combined treatments, probably due to the sensitivity of embryogenesis and plant regeneration. PyMoV elimination was 100% effective if cyclic somatic embryos were treated with chemotherapy using 20–30 mg/L ribavirin, but the phytotoxicity of ribavirin reduced the effectiveness of regeneration system, depending on the used concentrations [30]. In the case of the grapevine cultivars ‘Gewürztraminer’ and ‘Rupestris du lot’, SE combined with heat therapy showed 100% effectiveness, while SE alone was not able to eliminate GFLV [37,50].
7. Potential Transferability of Elimination Results by SE to Different Plant Species
In the case of grapevine, SE is a reliable tool for virus or viroid elimination. The most important grapevine viruses and viroids (Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3), but also minor viruses such as ArMV, GFkV, GFLV, GLRaV-1,2,3, grapevine Pinot gris virus (GPGV), GRSPaV, grapevine rupestris vein feathering virus (GRVFV), grapevine Syrah virus-1 (GSyV-1), GVA, and grapevine virus T (GVT), were successfully eliminated. Furthermore, SE is also a promising elimination method for two viroids (GYSVd-1 and HSVd). Nevertheless, more than 80 viral entities are known in grapevine, and there are no SE experiences with the majority of them yet [25]. The situation for the citrus species is highly similar: important viruses (CPsV, CTV, CVV) and viroids (CBCVd, CDVd, CEVd, HSVd) were successfully eliminated. However, SE proved to be useless to manage ASBVd in avocado. It was effective against CSSV in cocoa, leek yellow stripe virus (LYSV), and onion yellow dwarf virus (OYDV) in garlic, and PYMoV in black pepper, all of which cause crucial serious diseases on these species. Cassava and sugarcane have several important viruses; from these, ACMV and EACMV in cassava, as well as SCYLV in sugarcane, were eliminated by SE.
8. Conclusions
SE was successfully used for virus or viroid elimination in seven different economically important families of plants, and the effective removal of sugarcane yellow phytoplasma by SE was also reported [54]. SE was effective on a broad spectrum of different virus and viroid species– all of the examined 25 viruses and 5 from 6 tested viroids were eliminated by this method. In the case of viruses the elimination ratio was almost 100% for 16 viruses, over 50% for 6 viruses and less reliable for 3 viruses (Figure 3). The most recalcitrant viruses belong to the Betaflexiviridae (Carlavirus), Potyviridae (Potyvirus) and Secoviridae (Nepovirus) families. The elimination ratios of the different viroids are not usually lower than the majority of the viruses (Figure 4), and SE is a useful method for their elimination, with the exception of ASBVd (Avsunviroidae). Interestingly, the in vitro conditions increased the number of ASBVd sequence variants, and the presence of this viroid was persistent during the SE. When the presence of the different viruses and viroids was directly checked in embryos, then ASBVd, ACMV, CSSV, EACMV, GFKV, GFLV, and PYMoV were detected in some of the regenerated embryos, but GFKV was detected only in abnormal embryos. The sanitation results of the regenerated plants suggest that even more viruses and viroids are able to infiltrate into somatic embryos, such as GCLV, GLRaV-3, GRSPaV, LYSV, and OYDV viruses, and CDVd, CEVd, HSVd, and GYSVd-1 viroids. Based on these results, it appears that around half of the investigated viruses and all of the examined viroids are able to transfer into the regenerated somatic embryos. Secondary embryogenesis or the cyclic subculturing of somatic embryos was more effective for elimination in the case of ACMV, CSSV, and EACMV. The age of callus tissues and the slow regeneration may have a negative effect on the effectiveness (ACMV, CSSV, EACMV), but subculturing the calli around 6–15 times is able to eliminate the GFLV, GLRaV-s, GRSPaV, and GVA viruses. In the case of GFKV, direct embryogenesis was more suitable for elimination than the indirect one, and direct SE also proved to be highly effective in several other experiments [43,52]. The plant genotype could have a strong effect on elimination ratios, likely through the regeneration efficiency, especially in cassava and garlic, as well as in grapevine and citrus species, depending on the virus.
Chemotherapy or heat treatment combined with SE can improve the elimination effectiveness, but these additional treatments likely reduce the regeneration capacity of calli or somatic embryos.
If the genetic fidelity of the regenerated plants is important for the breeder, then it needs to be considered that ISSR, RAPD and SSR analyses showed 8–90% polymorphism, which is probably inoculum- and species-dependent. Based on the phenotypes of the regenerated plants, 0–1% of the plants typically showed morphological differences. As such these changes are likely causing only minor variation in the economically important properties of the cultivars. However, rigorous phenotypization of the regenerants is strongly recommended, and further experiments are needed to specify the expected value of genetic polymorphism.
The main advantage of SE as a virus and viroid elimination tool lays in its outstandingly high efficiency on a broad spectrum of viral entities of taxonomically diverse origin. SE could be successful even where other methods prove to be ineffective. The main limitation of SE, the genotype dependency, can be reduced by finding the optimal stage of the plant material used for initiation of the callus culture.
9. Short Conclusions
Since the aim of the published elimination experiments was usually to remove the identified natural combinations of viruses and viroids, it would be worthwhile to test the viruses and viroids in a systemic way in the future. Based on the experiences up until now, SE, compared to other methods, proved to be very effective for viruses and almost all cases for viroid elimination, but this effectiveness could depend on the plant genotype, the infection level and the virus species. Direct and indirect SE can be equally effective, but in the case of indirect SE, the low propagation ratio and slow regeneration of somatic cultures may reduce the efficiency. Most of the viruses and viroids are probably detectable in the calli, and around half of the virus and viroid species are certainly able to transfer to somatic embryos. In many cases, the infected embryos do not regenerate into plants, or, if they do, occurs with low efficiency. Additional treatments can improve the efficiency of SE, but they are rarely applied. To evaluate the genotype fidelity, further data are needed, but considerable morphological changes are normally rare, while genetic polymorphism, for example, in the SSR, seems to be much more common.
The importance of SE in the production of pathogen-free propagation material could increase further in the future, due to the ongoing research in the field of SE supporting its appropriate and widespread application, and due to the growing challenges of climate change in the agricultural economy.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, R.O. and D.A.N.S.; methodology, M.T., E.F. and K.O.; formal analysis, G.J.; investigation, M.T. and K.O.; writing—original draft preparation, R.O., T.D. and G.J.; writing—review and editing, R.O., T.D., G.J., E.F., M.T. and K.O.; visualization, G.J.; supervision, T.D.; funding acquisition, R.O. and D.A.N.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by National Research, Development and Innovation Office (NKFIH) grant number: K131679.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Not applicable.
Acknowledgments
M.T. and E.F. are PhD student at Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the Doctoral School of Horticultural Sciences and Doctoral School of Biological Sciences, respectively.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Jeger, M.J. The Impact of Climate Change on Disease in Wild Plant Populations and Communities. Plant Pathol. 2022, 71, 111–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Atlin, G.N.; Cairns, J.E.; Das, B. Rapid Breeding and Varietal Replacement Are Critical to Adaptation of Cropping Systems in the Developing World to Climate Change. Glob. Food Secur. 2017, 12, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Magyar-Tábori, K.; Mendler-Drienyovszki, N.; Hanász, A.; Zsombik, L.; Dobránszki, J. Phytotoxicity and Other Adverse Effects on the in Vitro Shoot Cultures Caused by Virus Elimination Treatments: Reasons and Solutions. Plants 2021, 10, 670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mahmoud, K.B.; Najar, A.; Jemai, N.; Jemmali, A. Advances in Sanitation Methods for Fruit Tree Species through in Vitro Technologies: Possibilities and Limits Scientific Review. Agric. Biotechnol. 2017, 45, 2483–2495. [Google Scholar]
- Panattoni, A.; Luvisi, A.; Triolo, E. Review. Elimination of Viruses in Plants: Twenty Years of Progress. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2013, 11, 173–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Halperin, W. In Vitro Embryogenesis: Some Historical Issues and Unresolved Problems. In In Vitro Embryogenesis in Plants; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1995; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Oláh, R.; Zok, A.; Pedryc, A.; Howard, S.; Kovács, L.G. Somatic Embryogenesis in a Broad Spectrum of Grape Genotypes. Sci. Hortic. 2009, 120, 134–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guan, Y.; Li, S.G.; Fan, X.F.; Su, Z.H. Application of Somatic Embryogenesis in Woody Plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carabez, J.R.S.; Ortiz, D.T.; Pérez, M.R.V.; Peña, H.B. The Avocado Sunblotch Viroid: An Invisible Foe of Avocado. Viruses 2019, 11, 491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Legg, J.P.; Lava Kumar, P.; Makeshkumar, T.; Tripathi, L.; Ferguson, M.; Kanju, E.; Ntawuruhunga, P.; Cuellar, W. Cassava Virus Diseases: Biology, Epidemiology, and Management. In Advances in Virus Research; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; Volume 91. [Google Scholar]
- Umer, M.; Liu, J.; You, H.; Xu, C.; Dong, K.; Luo, N.; Kong, L.; Li, X.; Hong, N.; Wang, G.; et al. Genomic, Morphological and Biological Traits of the Viruses Infecting Major Fruit Trees. Viruses 2019, 11, 515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Afloukou, F.; Dossou, L.; Zinsou, V. Virus and Virus-like Diseases of Citrus in West-Africa: An Overview. J. Hortic. Postharvest Res. 2020, 3, 129–138. [Google Scholar]
- Bendix, C.; Lewis, J.D. The Enemy within: Phloem-Limited Pathogens. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2018, 19, 238–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Belabess, Z.; Sagouti, T.; Rhallabi, N.; Tahiri, A.; Massart, S.; Tahzima, R.; Lahlali, R.; Haissam Jijakli, M. Citrus Psorosis Virus: Current Insights on a Still Poorly Understood Ophiovirus. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, C.; da Graça, J.V.; Freitas-Astúa, J.; Vidalakis, G.; Duran-Vila, N.; Lavagi, I. Citrus Viruses and Viroids. In The Genus Citrus; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Muller, E. Cacao Swollen Shoot Virus (CSSV): History, Biology, and Genome. In Cacao Diseases: A History of Old Enemies and New Encounters; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Bhat, A.I.; Hohn, T.; Selvarajan, R. Badnaviruses: The Current Global Scenario. Viruses 2016, 8, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Winiarczyk, K.; Solarska, E.; Sienkiewicz, W. Prevalence of Infections with Onion Yellow Dwarf Virus, Leek Yellow Stripe Virus and Garlic Common Latent Virus in Plants from the Genus Allium|Rozpowszechnienie Zakażeń Roślin z Rodzaju Allium Przez Wirusy Żółtej Karłowatości Cebuli (Oyd), Żółtej Smugo. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2014, 13, 123–133. [Google Scholar]
- Lunello, P.; Ducasse, D.A.; Helguera, M.; Nome, S.F.; Conci, V.C. An Argentinean Isolate of Leek Yellow Stripe Virus from Leek Can Be Transmitted to Garlic. J. Plant Pathol. 2002, 84, 11–17. [Google Scholar]
- Verma, R.K.; Mishra, R.; Petrov, N.M.; Stoyanova, M.; Stoev, A.; Bakardjieva, N.V.; Gaur, R.K. Molecular Characterization and Recombination Analysis of an Indian Isolate of Onion Yellow Dwarf Virus. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2015, 143, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martelli, G.P. Directory of Virus and Virus-like Diseases of the Grapevine and Their Agents. J. Plant Pathol. 2014, 96, 1–136. [Google Scholar]
- Meng, B.; Martelli, G.P.; Golino, D.A.; Fuchs, M. Grapevine Viruses: Molecular Biology, Diagnostics and Management; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- San Pedro, T.; Gammoudi, N.; Peiró, R.; Olmos, A.; Gisbert, C. Somatic Embryogenesis from Seeds in a Broad Range of Vitis vinifera L. Varieties: Rescue of True-to-Type Virus-Free Plants. BMC Plant Biol. 2017, 17, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jo, Y.; Song, M.K.; Choi, H.; Park, J.S.; Lee, J.W.; Lian, S.; Lee, B.C.; Cho, W.K. Genome Sequence of Grapevine Virus T, a Novel Foveavirus Infecting Grapevine. Genome Announc. 2017, 5, e00995-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nuzzo, F.; Moine, A.; Nerva, L.; Pagliarani, C.; Perrone, I.; Boccacci, P.; Gribaudo, I.; Chitarra, W.; Gambino, G. Grapevine Virome and Production of Healthy Plants by Somatic Embryogenesis. Microb. Biotechnol. 2022, 15, 1357–1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ElSayed, A.I.; Komor, E.; Boulila, M.; Viswanathan, R.; Odero, D.C. Biology and Management of Sugarcane Yellow Leaf Virus: An Historical Overview. Arch. Virol. 2015, 160, 2921–2934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Quainoo, A.K.; Wetten, A.C.; Allainguillaume, J. The Effectiveness of Somatic Embryogenesis in Eliminating the Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus from Infected Cocoa Trees. J. Virol. Methods 2008, 149, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Quainoo, A.K. Age of Callus Tissues and Cotyledonary Materials on the Selection of Cocoa Swollen Shoot Virus-Free Somatic Embryos. Res. Biotechnol. 2011, 2, 78–81. [Google Scholar]
- Edward, R.; Wetten, A. Virus Detection and Elimination in Cocoa (Theobroma Cacao L.) Through Somatic Embryogenesis. J. Plant Sci. 2016, 4, 52–57. [Google Scholar]
- Sasi, S.; Bhat, A.I. In Vitro Elimination of Piper Yellow Mottle Virus from Infected Black Pepper through Somatic Embryogenesis and Meristem-Tip Culture. Crop Prot. 2018, 103, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Damba, Y.; Quainoo, A.; Sowley, E. Effectiveness of Somatic Embryogenesis in Eliminating the Cassava Mosaic Virus from Infected Cassava (Manihot Esculenta Crantz) Plant Materials. Int. J. Sci. Technol. Res. 2013, 2, 282–287. [Google Scholar]
- Mutai, G.K.; Wagacha, J.M.; Nyaboga, E.N. Potential of Somatic Embryogenesis in Elimination of East Africa Cassava Mosaic Virus from Infected Cassava Cultivars in Kenya. Annu. Res. Rev. Biol. 2017, 15, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gambino, G.; Vallania, R.; Gribaudo, I. In Situ Localization of Grapevine Fanleaf Virus and Phloem-Restricted Viruses in Embryogenic Callus of Vitis Vinifera. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2010, 127, 557–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gambino, G.; Bondaz, J.; Gribaudo, I. Detection and Elimination of Viruses in Callus, Somatic Embryos and Regenerated Plantlets of Grapevine. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2006, 114, 397–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scagliusi, S.M.M.; Vega, J.; Kuniyuki, H. Cytopathology of Callus Cells Infected with Grapevine Leafroll-Associated Virus 3. Fitopatol. Bras. 2002, 27, 384–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Popescu, C.F.; Buciumeanu, E.C.; Visoiu, E. Somatic Embryogenesis, a Reliable Method for Grapevine Fleck Virus Free Grapevine Regeneration. In Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts 14th Meeting of ICVG, Bari, Italy, 12–17 September 2003; p. 243. [Google Scholar]
- Goussard, P.G.; Wiid, J. The Elimination of Fanleaf Virus from Grapevines Using in Vitro Somatic Embryogenesis Combined with Heat Therapy. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 2017, 13, 81–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- D’Onghia, A.M.; Carimi, F.; De Pasquale, F.; Djelouah, K.; Martelli, G.P. Elimination of Citrus Psorosis Virus by Somatic Embryogenesis from Stigma and Style Cultures. Plant Pathol. 2001, 50, 266–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suarez, I.E.; Schnell, R.A.; Kuhn, D.N.; Litz, R.E. Recovery and Indexing of Avocado Plants (Persea Americana) from Embryogenic Nucellar Cultures of an Avocado Sunblotch Viroid-Infected Tree. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2005, 84, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gambino, G.; Navarro, B.; Vallania, R.; Gribaudo, I.; Di Serio, F. Somatic Embryogenesis Efficiently Eliminates Viroid Infections from Grapevines. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2011, 130, 511–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meziane, M.; Frasheri, D.; Carra, A.; Boudjeniba, M.; D’Onghia, A.M.; Mercati, F.; Djelouah, K.; Carimi, F. Attempts to Eradicate Graft-Transmissible Infections through Somatic Embryogenesis in Citrus Ssp. and Analysis of Genetic Stability of Regenerated Plants. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2017, 148, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nkaa, F.A.; Ene-Obong, E.E.; Taylor, N.; Fauquet, C.; Mbanaso, E.N.A. Elimination of African Cassava Mosaic Virus (ACMV) and East African Cassava Mosaic Virus (EACMV) from Cassava (Manihot Esculenta Crantz) Cv. “Nwugo” via Somatic Embryogenesis. Am. J. Biotechnol. Mol. Sci. 2013, 3, 33–40. [Google Scholar]
- Borroto-Fernandez, E.G.; Sommerbauer, T.; Popowich, E.; Schartl, A.; Laimer, M. Somatic Embryogenesis from Anthers of the Autochthonous Vitis Vinifera Cv. Domina Leads to Arabis Mosaic Virus-Free Plants. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2009, 124, 171–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Sawy, A.; Gomaa, A.; Abd-El-Zaher, M.H.; Reda, A.; Danial, N. Production of Somatic Embryogenesis via in Vitro Culture of Stigma and Style for Elimination of Citrus Psorosisvirus (CpsV) from Some Citrus Genotypes. J. Hortic. Sci. Ornam. Plants 2013, 5, 110–117. [Google Scholar]
- Jin, S.B.; Park, J.H.; Park, S.M.; Lee, D.H.; Yun, S.H. Production of Citrus Plants from Ovule Cell Culture and Verification of CTV—Free Plants. Korean J. Hortic. Sci. Technol. 2017, 35, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kereša, S.; Kurtović, K.; Ban, S.G.; Vončina, D.; Jerčić, I.H.; Bolarić, S.; Lazarević, B.; Godena, S.; Ban, D.; Mihovilović, A.B. Production of Virus-Free Garlic Plants through Somatic Embryogenesis. Agronomy 2021, 11, 876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malenica, N.; Jagic, M.; Pavletic, B.; Bauer, N.; Vončina, D.; Zdunic, G.; Levanic, D.L. Somatic Embryogenesis as a Tool for Virus Elimination in Croatian Indigenous Grapevine Cultivars. Acta Bot. Croat. 2020, 79, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turcsan, M.; Demian, E.; Varga, T.; Jaksa-Czotter, N.; Szegedi, E.; Olah, R.; Varallyay, E. Hts-Based Monitoring of the Efficiency of Somatic Embryogenesis and Meristem Cultures Used for Virus Elimination in Grapevine. Plants 2020, 9, 1782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gambino, G.; Di Matteo, D.; Gribaudo, I. Elimination of Grapevine Fanleaf Virus from Three Vitis Vinifera Cultivars by Somatic Embryogenesis. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2009, 123, 57–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goussard, P.G.; Wiid, J.; Kasdon, G.G.F. The Effectiveness of in Vitro Somatic Embryogenesis in Eliminating Fanleaf Virus and Leafroll Associated Viruses from Grapevines. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 1991, 12, 77–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Peiró, R.; Gammoudi, N.; Yuste, A.; Olmos, A.; Gisbert, C. Mature Seeds for in Vitro Sanitation of the Grapevine Leafroll Associated Virus (GLRaV-1 and GLRaV-3) from Grape (Vitis vinifera L.). Span. J. Agric. Res. 2015, 13, e1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bouamama-Gzara, B.; Selmi, I.; Chebil, S.; Melki, I.; Mliki, A.; Ghorbel, A.; Carra, A.; Carimi, F.; Mahfoudhi, N. Elimination of Grapevine Leafroll Associated Virus-3, Grapevine Rupestris Stem Pitting Associated Virus and Grapevine Virus A from a Tunisian Cultivar by Somatic Embryogenesis and Characterization of the Somaclones Using Ampelographic Descriptors. Plant Pathol. J. 2017, 33, 561–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gribaudo, I.; Gambino, G.; Cuozzo, D.; Mannini, F. Attempts to Eliminate Grapevine Rupestris Stem Pitting-Associated Virus from Grapevine Clones. J. Plant Pathol. 2006, 88, 293–298. [Google Scholar]
- Parmessur, Y.; Aljanabi, S.; Saumtally, S.; Dookun-Saumtally, A. Sugarcane Yellow Leaf Virus and Sugarcane Yellows Phytoplasma: Elimination by Tissue Culture. Plant Pathol. 2002, 51, 561–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahmoud, K.B.; Najar, A.; JedidI, E.; HamdI, I.; Jemmali, A. Detection of Two Viroids in the Tunisian Sweet Orange (Citrus Sinensis L) Cv. Maltese and Sanitation via Somatic Embryogenesis. J. Chem. Pharm. Res. 2017, 9, 154–159. [Google Scholar]
- D’Onghia, A.M.; De Pasquale, F.; Carimi, F.; Savino, V.; Crescimanno, F.G. Somatic Embryogenesis from Style Culture as a Possible Means for Virus Elimination in Cityus. J. Phytopathol. 1997, 145, 77–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hervé, E.; Romain, G.; Thierry, B.; Jean-Christophe, B.; Estelle, J. Plant Fidelity in Somatic Embryogenesis-Regenerated Plants. In Somatic Embryogenesis: Fundamental Aspects and Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Jahnke, G.; Májer, J.; Varga, P.; SzÖke, B. Analysis of Clones of Pinots Grown in Hungary by SSR Markers. Sci. Hortic. 2011, 129, 32–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aleza, P.; Juárez, J.; Ollitrault, P.; Navarro, L. Polyembryony in Non-Apomictic Citrus Genotypes. Ann. Bot. 2010, 106, 533–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Figure 1.
ICTV taxonomy of viruses involved in SE experiments.
Figure 2.
ICTV taxonomy of viroids tested in SE experiments.
Figure 3.
Elimination efficiencies of different viruses sorted by ICTV taxonomy. Blue bars show the number of available data for the different viruses.
Figure 3.
Elimination efficiencies of different viruses sorted by ICTV taxonomy. Blue bars show the number of available data for the different viruses.
Figure 4.
Elimination efficiencies of different viroids sorted by ICTV taxonomy. Blue bars show the number of available data for the different viroids.
Figure 4.
Elimination efficiencies of different viroids sorted by ICTV taxonomy. Blue bars show the number of available data for the different viroids.
Table 1.
Diseases in different plant species caused by viruses and viroids, which were tested in SE based elimination experiments.
Table 1.
Diseases in different plant species caused by viruses and viroids, which were tested in SE based elimination experiments.
| Disease | Name | Family/Genus | Properties | References | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| avocado | sunblotch | ASBVd | Avocado sunblotch viroid | Avsunviroidae Avsunviroid | nonprotein-coding ssRNA, accumulating in the chloroplast, seed/graft transmissible | [9] |
| cassava | mosaic disease | ACMV | African cassava mosaic virus | Geminiviridae Begomovirus | ssDNA genome, vector transmissible | [10] |
| EACMV | East African cassava mosaic virus | Geminiviridae Begomovirus | ssDNA genome, vector transmissible | [10] | ||
| citrus | tristeza | CTV | Citrus tristeza virus | Closteroviridae Closterovirus | +ssRNA genome, graft/vector transmissible, phloem limited | [11,12,13] |
| psorosis complex | CPsV | Citrus psorosis ophiovirus | Aspiviridae Ophiovirus | -ssRNA genome, seems to be graft transmissible, seedborne | [11,14] | |
| exocortis | CEVd | Citrus exocortis viroid | Pospiviroideae Pospiviroid | nonprotein-coding, small, circular ssRNA, graft transmitted | [12,15] | |
| cachexia | HSVd | Hop stunt viroid | Pospiviroideae Hostuviroid | nonprotein-coding, small, circular ssRNA, accumulates within the nucleus, graft transmitted | [12,15] | |
| infectious variegation | CVV | Citrus variegation virus | Bromoviridae Ilarvirus | +ssRNA genome, seed/graft transmissible | [11,15] | |
| dwarfing symptoms | CDVd | Citrus dwarfing viroid | Pospiviroidae Apscaviroid | nonprotein-coding, small, circular ssRNA, graft transmissible | [15] | |
| bark cracking symptoms | CBCVd | Citrus bark cracking viroid | Pospiviroidae Cocadviroid | nonprotein-coding, small, circular ssRNA, graft transmissible | [15] | |
| cocoa | swollen shoot disease | CSSV | Cocoa swollen shoot virus | Caulimoviridae Badnavirus | dsDNA-RT genome, replicating through an RNA intermediate, seed/graft/vector transmissible | [16,17] |
| garlic | symptomless | GCLV | Garlic common latent virus | Betaflexiviridae Carlavirus | +ssRNA genome, not seed borne, mechanically/vector transmissible | [18] |
| mosaic | LYSV | Leek yellow stripe virus | Potyviridae Potyvirus | +ssRNA genome, not seed borne, mechanically/vector transmissible | [19] | |
| OYDV | Onion yellow dwarf virus | Potyviridae Potyvirus | +ssRNA genome, mechanically/vector transmissible | [20] | ||
| grapevine | infectious degeneration | ArMV | Arabis mosaic virus | Secoviridae Nepovirus | +ssRNA genome, non phloem limited, seed/sap/vector transmissible | [21,22] |
| GFLV | Grapevine fanleaf virus | Secoviridae, Nepovirus | +ssRNA genome, non phloem limited, seed/graft/vector transmitted | [22,23] | ||
| fleck complex | GFkV | Grapevine fleck virus | Tymoviridae, Maculavirus | +ssRNA genome, phloem limited, not seed transmitted, graft transmitted | [21,22] | |
| GRVFV | Grapevine rupestris vein feathering virus | Tymoviridae Marafivirus | +ssRNA genome, phloem limited | [21,22] | ||
| leafroll disease | GLRaV-1 | Grapevine leafroll-associated virus-1 | Closteroviridae Ampelovirus | +ssRNA genome, phloem limited, graft/vector transmissible | [11,21] | |
| GLRaV-2 | Grapevine leafroll-associated virus-2 | Closteroviridae Closterovirus | +ssRNA genome, phloem limited, graft transmissible | [11,22] | ||
| GLRaV-3 | Grapevine leafroll-associated virus-3 | Closteroviridae Ampelovirus | +ssRNA genome, phloem limited, seed/graft/vector transmissible | [11,23] | ||
| GLRaV-4 | Grapevine leafroll-associated virus-4 | Closteroviridae Ampelovirus | +ssRNA genome, phloem limited, graft/vector transmissible | [22] | ||
| rugose wood complex | GRSPaV | Grapevine rupestris stem pitting-associated virus | Betaflexiviridae Foveavirus | +ssRNA genome, maybe not phloem limited, may not be seed transmitted, graft transmissible | [21,22] | |
| GVA | Grapevine virus A | Betaflexiviridae Vitivirus | +ssRNA genome, phloem limited, graft/vector transmissible | [11,22] | ||
| GVD | Grapevine virus D | Betaflexiviridae Vitivirus | +ssRNA genome, graft transmissible | [22] | ||
| GVT | Grapevine virus T | Betaflexiviridae Foveavirus | +ssRNA genome | [24,25] | ||
| leaf mottling and deformation | GPGV | Grapevine Pinot gris virus | Betaflexiviridae Tichovirus | +ssRNA genome, graft transmissible, vector supposed | [21,22] | |
| yellow speckle | GYSVd-1 | Grapevine yellow speckle viroid-1 | Pospiviroideae Apscaviroid | nonprotein-coding, small, circular ssRNA, accumulating within the nucleus, seed transmitted | [20,21] | |
| symptomless or unknown symptomes | GSyV-1 | Grapevine Syrah virus-1 | Tymoviridae Marafivirus | +ssRNA genome, phloem limited | [21,22] | |
| HSVd | Hop stunt viroid | Pospiviroideae Hostuviroid | nonprotein-coding, small, circular ssRNA, accumulating within the nucleus | [21,22] | ||
| black pepper | yellow mottle | PYMoV | Piper yellow mottle virus | Caulimoviridae Badnavirus | dsDNA-RT genome, replicating through an RNA intermediate, seed/vector transmission | [17] |
| sugarcane | yellow leaf | SCYLV | Sugarcane yellow leaf virus | Luteoviridae Polerovirus | +ssRNA genome, phloem restricted, vector transmissible | [26] |
Table 2.
Main results of the virus elimination experiments via somatic embryogenesis in different species and cultivars.
Table 2.
Main results of the virus elimination experiments via somatic embryogenesis in different species and cultivars.
| Species/Cultivar | Elimination Efficiency of Regenerated Plants | Key Points of the Protocol 1 | Virus Diagnostic Method | References | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| viruses | ACMV | Manihot esculenta ‘Nwugo’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, immature leaf lobes (picloram) | PCR | [42] |
| ArMV | Vitis vinifera ‘Domina’ | 100% | direct and indirect embryogenesis, anthers (2,4-D+BAP) | ELISA, immuno capture RT-PCR | [43] | |
| CPsV | Citrus limon ‘Béni’, ‘Abbès’, ‘Sans pépins’, Citrus sinensis ‘Mitidja navel’, ‘Shamouti de station’, ‘Washington navel 251’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, stigmas, and styles (BAP) | DAS– ELISA | [41] | |
| Citrus reticulata, Citrus sinensis ‘Navelina’ Citrus sinenesis x C. reticulata ‘Dweet tangor’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, stigmas, and styles (BAP) | DAS– ELISA | [38] | ||
| Citrus sinensis ‘Washington navel’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, stigma (BAP) | RT-PCR | [44] | ||
| CSSV | Theobroma cacao ‘Amolenado’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, staminode explants (2,4-D, TDZ) | PCR, qPCR | [27] | |
| Theobroma cacao ‘CL 19/10’, ‘ICS 68’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, staminode explants (2,4-D, TDZ) | PCR | [29] | ||
| CTV | Citrus limon ‘Dellys’, ‘Villafranca’ Citrus sinensis ‘Mitidja navel’, ‘Shamouti de station’, ‘Washington navel 251’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, stigmas, and styles (BAP) | DAS– ELISA | [41] | |
| Citrus erythrosa ‘Dongjeongkyool’ Citrus nippokoreana ‘Cheongkyool’ Citrus aurantium ‘Jikak’ Citrus unshiu ‘Miyagawa wase’, ‘Haryejosaeng’ | 100% | direct and indirect embrygenesis, ovules from immature fruits (Kin) | RT-PCR, immune-Strip test | [45] | ||
| CVV | Citrus limon ‘Bornèo’, ‘Eureka 4’, ‘Sans pépins’, Citrus sinensis ‘Washington navel 251’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, stigmas, and styles (BAP) | TAS-ELISA | [41] | |
| EACMV | Manihot esculenta ‘Nwugo’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, immature leaf lobes (picloram) | PCR | [42] | |
| Manihot esculenta ‘TME 14’, ‘Ex-Mariakani’, ‘Sagalato’, ‘Kibandameno’, ‘TMS 60444’ | 100%, 71.4–91.7%, 100%, 100%, 66.7–75% | embryogenesis, nodal cuttings (picloram) | PCR | [32] | ||
| GCLV | Allium sativum ‘Istarski crveni’, ‘IPT012’ | 18.2–50%, 0–20% | indirect embryogenesis, cutted cloves (2,4-D/2,4-D+Kin) | ELISA, RT-PCR | [46] | |
| GFkV | Vitis vinifera ‘Mission’, ‘Coarna negra’, ‘Ranai Magaraci’ | 100% | direct or indirect embryogenesis, anthers (IAA+BAP), ovules (IBA+BAP) | ELISA | [36] | |
| Vitis vinifera ‘Pinot blanc’, ‘Cabernet franc’, ‘Valenci blanc’ | 100% | direct or indirect embryogenesis, immature cut seeds (TDZ) | RT-qPCR | [23] | ||
| Vitis vinifera ‘Babica’ | 100% | immature anthers, (BAP+NOA+2,4-D) | RT-PCR | [47] | ||
| Vitis vinifera ‘Muscat Ottonel H-7-3’, ‘Muscat Ottonel H-14-1’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers (2,4-D+TDZ) | RT-PCR, sRNA HTS | [48] | ||
| Vitis vinifera ‘Glória’, ‘Muscat Ottonel H-13-4’, ‘Müller-Thurgau’, Vitis sp. ‘9/143’ complex hybrid | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers (2,4-D+TDZ) | RT-PCR | this paper | ||
| Vitis vinifera ‘Brachetto’, ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’, ‘Nebbiolo’, ‘Sangiovese’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers, and ovaries (2,4-D+BAP) | RNA HTS, RT-qPCR | [25] | ||
| GFLV | Vitis vinifera ‘Cari’, ‘Proviné’, ‘Roussan’ | 100%, 97%, 100% | anthers and ovaries (2,4-D+BAP) | RT-PCR | [49] | |
| Vitis rupestris ‘Rupestris du Lot’ | 0% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers (2,4-D+BAP), and ovaries (2,4-D+NOA+BAP) | ELISA, immuno-sorbent electron microscopy | [50] | ||
| Vitis vinifera ‘Gewürztraminer’, Vitis rupestris ‘Rupestris du lot’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis combined with heat therapy (35 °C), anthers (2,4-D+BAP), and ovaries (2,4-D+NOA+BAP) | ELISA, immuno-sorbent electron microscopy | [37] | ||
| Vitis vinifera ‘Pinot blanc’, ‘Tempranillo’, ‘Godello’, ‘Merlot’ | 88%, 69%, 79%, 90% | direct or indirect embryogenesis, immature cut seeds (TDZ) | RT-qPCR | [23] | ||
| Vitis vinifera ‘Babica’, ‘Plavac mali’ | 66%, 33% | immature anthers, (BAP+NOA+2,4-D) | RT-PCR | [47] | ||
| Vitis sp. ‘9/143’ hybrid, Vitis vinifera ‘Muscat Ottonel H-13-4’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers (2,4-D+TDZ) | RT-PCR | this paper | ||
| Vitis vinifera ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers, and ovaries (2,4-D+BAP) | RNA HTS, RT-qPCR | [25] | ||
| GLRaV-1 | Vitis vinifera ‘Grignolino’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, stamens, and pistils (2,4-D+BAP) | ELISA, RT-PCR, tissue blot immuno-assay | [34] | |
| Vitis vinifera ‘Grumet Negre’ | 100% | mature cut seeds (TDZ) | RT-qPCR | [51] | ||
| Vitis vinifera ‘Plavac mali’ | 100% | immature anthers, (BAP+NOA+2,4-D) | RT-PCR | [47] | ||
| Vitis vinifera ‘Müller-Thurgau’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers (2,4-D+TDZ) | RT-PCR | this paper | ||
| GLRaV-2 | Vitis vinifera ‘Roobernet’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers (2,4-D+BAP), and ovaries (2,4-D+NOA+BAP) | ELISA, immuno-sorbent electron microscopy | [50] | |
| Vitis vinifera ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers, and ovaries (2,4-D+BAP) | RNA HTS, RT-qPCR | [25] | ||
| GLRaV-3 | Vitis vinifera ‘Roobernet’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers (2,4-D+BAP), and ovaries (2,4-D+NOA+BAP) | ELISA, immunosorbent electron microscopy | [50] | |
| Vitis vinifera ‘Grumet Negre’ | 100% | mature cut seeds (TDZ) | RT-qPCR | [51] | ||
| Vitis vinifera ‘Cabernet franc’, ‘Godello’, ‘Merlot’, ‘Valencí blanc’ | 100%, 100%, 90%, 100% | direct or indirect embryogenesis, immature cut seeds (TDZ) | RT-qPCR | [23] | ||
| Vitis vinifera ‘Müller-Thurgau’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, stamens, and pistils (2,4-D+BAP) | ELISA, RT-PCR, tissue blot immunoassay | [34] | ||
| Vitis vinifera ‘Hencha’ | 100% | direct embryogenesis, stamen (2,4-D+TDZ) | ELISA, RT-PCR | [52] | ||
| Vitis vinifera ‘Babica’, ‘Plavac mali’ | 100% | immature anthers, (BAP+NOA+2,4-D) | RT-PCR | [47] | ||
| Vitis vinifera ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’, ‘Sangiovese’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers, and ovaries (2,4-D+BAP) | RNA HTS, RT-qPCR | [25] | ||
| GLRaV-4 | Vitis vinifera ‘Sangiovese’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers, and ovaries (2,4-D+BAP) | RNA HTS, RT-qPCR | [25] | |
| GPGV | Vitis vinifera ‘Trilla’, ‘Szirén’, ‘Muscat Ottonel H-14-1’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers (2,4-D+TDZ) | RT-PCR, sRNA HTS | [48] | |
| Vitis rupestris Vitis sp. ‘Richter 110’ Vitis vinifera ‘Brachetto’, ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’, ‘Chardonnay’, ‘Nebbiolo’, ‘Sangiovese’ | 100% 100% 100%, 100%, 100%, 91%, 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers and ovaries (2,4-D+BAP) | RNA HTS, RT-qPCR | [25] | ||
| GRSPaV | Vitis vinifera ‘Grignolino’, ‘Müller-Thurgau’, ‘Bosco’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, stamens, and pistils (2,4-D+BAP) | ELISA, RT-PCR, tissue blot immunoassay | [34] | |
| Vitis vinifera ‘Albarola’, ‘Bosco’, ‘Brachetto’, ‘Grignolino’, ‘Müller Thurgau’, ‘Rossese’, ‘Vermentino’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, immature anthers, and ovules (2,4-D+BAP) | RT-PCR | [53] | ||
| Vitis vinifera ‘Hencha’ | 100% | direct embryogenesis, stamen (2,4-D+TDZ) | ELISA, RT-PCR | [52] | ||
| Vitis vinifera ‘Trilla’, ‘Szirén’, ‘Muscat Ottonel H-7-3’, ‘Muscat Ottonel H-14-1’ | 100%, 54%, 100%, 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers (2,4-D+TDZ) | RT-PCR, sRNA HTS | [48] | ||
| Vitis sp. ‘Pamerzs’, ‘Abigél’, ‘Borsmenta’, ‘9/143’ hybrid Vitis vinifera ‘Glória’, ‘Muscat Ottonel’, ‘Müller-Thurgau’ | 100%, 88%, 100%, 100%, 60%, 100%, 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers (2,4-D+TDZ) | RT-PCR | this paper | ||
| Vitis rupestris Vitis sp. ‘Richter 110’ Vitis vinifera ‘Brachetto’, ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’, ‘Chardonnay’, ‘Nebbiolo’, ‘Sangiovese’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers, and ovaries (2,4-D+BAP) | RNA HTS, RT-qPCR | [25] | ||
| GRVFV | Vitis vinifera ‘Muscat Ottonel H-7-3’, ‘Muscat Ottonel H-14-1’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers (2,4-D+TDZ) | RT-PCR, sRNA HTS | [48] | |
| GSyV-1 | Vitis vinifera ‘Trilla’, ‘Szirén’, ‘Muscat Ottonel H-7-3’, ‘Muscat Ottonel H-14-1’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers (2,4-D+TDZ) | RT-PCR, sRNA HTS | [48] | |
| GVA | Vitis vinifera ‘Grignolino’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, stamens, and pistils (2,4-D+BAP) | ELISA, RT-PCR, tissue blot immunoassay | [34] | |
| Vitis vinifera ‘Hencha’ | 100% | direct embryogenesis, stamen (2,4-D+TDZ) | ELISA, RT-PCR | [52] | ||
| Vitis vinifera ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers, and ovaries (2,4-D+BAP) | RNA HTS, RT-qPCR | [25] | ||
| GVD | Vitis vinifera ‘Sangiovese’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers, and ovaries (2,4-D+BAP) | RNA HTS, RT-qPCR | [25] | |
| GVT | Vitis vinifera ‘Trilla’, ‘Szirén’, ‘Muscat Ottonel H-14-1’ | 100%, 100%, 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers (2,4-D+TDZ) | RT-PCR, sRNA HTS | [48] | |
| Vitis vinifera ‘Chardonnay’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers, and ovaries (2,4-D+BAP) | RNA HTS, RT-qPCR | [25] | ||
| LYSV | Allium sativum ‘Istarski crveni’, ‘IPT012’ | 30.4–62.5%, 0–20% | indirect embryogenesiscut cloves (2,4-D/2,4-D+Kin) | ELISA, RT-PCR | [46] | |
| OYDV | Allium sativum ‘Istarski crveni’, ‘IPT012’ | 19.6–50% 0–13.3% | indirect embryogenesiscut cloves (2,4-D/2,4-D+Kin) | ELISA, RT-PCR | [46] | |
| PYMoV | Piper nigrum ‘IISR Malabar Excel’, ‘IISR Shakthi’, ‘IISR Thevam’, ‘Panniyur-1’, ‘Sreekara’, ‘Subhakara’ | 55%, 65%, 100%, 70%, 72%, 72% | embryogenesis, micropylar region of matured seeds (PGR-free) | PCR | [30] | |
| SCYLV | Saccharum sp. ‘CC8527’, ‘CC8215’, ‘R830288’, ‘R831592’, ‘R830395’, ‘R832065’, ‘R840653’, ‘R832276’, ‘G75368’, ‘N27’, ‘Q159’, ‘Q135’, ‘Q155’, ‘Q127’, ‘SP80185’, ‘ROC14’, ‘ROC13’, ‘SP803390’, ‘SP792233’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, young leaf rolls (2,4-D) | RT-PCR | [54] | |
1 Key points: type of regeneration, organs or tissues used for SE, PGRs used for initiation of embryogenic cultures. Abbreviations: 2,4-D—2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid; BAP—6-benzylaminopurine; IAA—Indole-3-acetic acid; IBA—indole-3-butyric acid; Kin—kinetin; NOA—2-naphthoxyacetic acid; TDZ—thidiazuron.
Table 3.
The main results of the viroid elimination experiments via somatic embryogenesis in different species/cultivars.
Table 3.
The main results of the viroid elimination experiments via somatic embryogenesis in different species/cultivars.
| Species/Cultivar | Elimination Efficiency of Regenerated Plants | Key Points of the Protocol 1 | Viroid Diagnostic Method | Reference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| viroids | ASBVd | Persea americana ‘Vero Beach’ | 0% | embryogenesis, nucellus of immature avocado seeds (picloram) | RT-PCR, fragments were cloned and sequenced | [39] |
| CBCVd (CVd-IV) | Citrus sinensis ‘Maltese’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, stigmas, and styles (BAP) | RT-PCR | [55] | |
| CDVd (CVd-III) | Citrus limon ‘Dellys’, ‘Eureka Maroc’, ‘Lunario’, ‘Villafranca’, ‘Sécile’ Citrus sinensis ‘Mitidja navel’, ‘Shamouti de station’ | 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 64%, 100%, 100% | indirect embryogenesis, stigmas, and styles (BAP) | RT-PCR | [41] | |
| Citrus sinensis ‘Maltese’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, stigmas, and styles (BAP) | RT-PCR | [55] | ||
| CEVd | Citrus limon ‘Béni Abbès’, ‘Bornèo’, ‘Dellys’, ‘Eureka 4’, ‘Femminello’, ‘Lunario’, ‘Sans pépins’, ‘Villafranca’, ‘Sécile’ Citrus sinensis ‘Mitidja navel’, ‘Shamouti de station’ | 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 82%, 100%, 100% | indirect embryogenesis, stigmas, and styles (BAP) | RT-PCR | [41] | |
| Citrus limon ‘Lunario’, ‘Femminello Zagara Bianca’, ‘Femminello Santa Teresa’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, styles (BAP) | woody indicator | [56] | ||
| HSVd | Citrus limon ‘Béni Abbès’, ‘Bornèo’, ‘Dellys’, ‘Eureka 4’, ‘Femminello’, ‘Lunario’, ‘Sans pépins’, ‘Villafranca’, ‘Sécile’ Citrus sinensis ‘Mitidja navel’, ‘Shamouti de station’ | 60%, 71%, 75%, 75%, 67%, 100%, 100%, 83%, 64%, 100%, 77% | indirect embryogenesis, stigmas, and styles (BAP) | RT-PCR | [41] | |
| Vitis vinifera ‘Cari’, ‘Proviné’, ‘Roussan’, ‘Nebbiolo’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, stamens, and pistils (2,4-D+BAP) | RT-PCR | [40] | ||
| Vitis vinifera ‘Trilla’, ‘Szirén’, ‘Muscat Ottonel H-7-3’, ‘Muscat Ottonel H-14-1’ | 83%, 81%, 100%, 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers (2,4-D+TDZ) | RT-PCR, sRNA HTS | [48] | ||
| Vitis rupestris Vitis sp. ‘Richter 110’ Vitis vinifera ‘Brachetto’, ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’, ‘Chardonnay’, ‘Nebbiolo’, ‘Sangiovese’ | 0% 60% 100%, 100%, 95%, 100%, 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers, and ovaries (2,4-D+BAP) | RNA HTS, RT-qPCR | [25] | ||
| GYSVd-1 | Vitis vinifera ‘Cari’, ‘Proviné’, ‘Roussan’, ‘Nebbiolo’ | 100% | indirect embryogenesis, stamens, and pistils (2,4-D+BAP) | RT-PCR | [40] | |
| Vitis vinifera ‘Trilla’, ‘Szirén’, ‘Muscat Ottonel H-7-3’, ‘Muscat Ottonel H-14-1’ | 8.3%, 82%, 86%, 75% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers (2,4-D+TDZ) | RT-PCR, sRNA HTS | [48] | ||
| Vitis rupestris Vitis vinifera ‘Brachetto’, ‘Chardonnay’, ‘Nebbiolo’, ‘Sangiovese’ | 100% 100%, 100%, 73%, 100% | indirect embryogenesis, anthers, and ovaries (2,4-D+BAP) | RNA HTS, RT-qPCR | [25] | ||
1 Key points: type of regeneration, organs or tissues used for SE, PGRs used for initiation of embryogenic cultures. Abbreviations: 2,4-D—2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid; BAP—6-benzylaminopurine; TDZ—thidiazuron.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Olah, R.; Turcsan, M.; Olah, K.; Farkas, E.; Deak, T.; Jahnke, G.; Sardy, D.A.N. Somatic Embryogenesis: A Tool for Fast and Reliable Virus and Viroid Elimination for Grapevine and other Plant Species. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 508. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8060508
AMA Style
Olah R, Turcsan M, Olah K, Farkas E, Deak T, Jahnke G, Sardy DAN. Somatic Embryogenesis: A Tool for Fast and Reliable Virus and Viroid Elimination for Grapevine and other Plant Species. Horticulturae. 2022; 8(6):508. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8060508
Chicago/Turabian StyleOlah, Robert, Mihaly Turcsan, Krisztina Olah, Eszter Farkas, Tamas Deak, Gizella Jahnke, and Diana Agnes Nyitraine Sardy. 2022. "Somatic Embryogenesis: A Tool for Fast and Reliable Virus and Viroid Elimination for Grapevine and other Plant Species" Horticulturae 8, no. 6: 508. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8060508
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
